In fact neither Dawkins or Armstrong appear to have been given the opportunity to respond to their opponents’ opening remarks - not that it would have been necessary though, as Armstrong spends half her time agreeing with Dawkins anyway.

The article begins, “We commissioned Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins to respond independently to the question “Where does evolution leave God?” Neither knew what the other would say. Here are the results.”

On Armstrong

Armstrong’s opening paragraph was virtually indistinguishable from Dawkins’ views and would make any atheistic philosopher proud.

Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of course—at least in one important respect. Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived. It tells us that there is no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection, in which innumerable species failed to survive. The fossil record reveals a natural history of pain, death and racial extinction, so if there was a divine plan, it was cruel, callously prodigal and wasteful. Human beings were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else, they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making. No wonder so many fundamentalist Christians find their faith shaken to the core.

By the way, just keep in mind that this is the theist !

Twice also in the article Armstrong focuses on certain events in the 17th century, as if these events were the turning point for Christians, who once regarded the scriptures as allegorical and their God as symbolic, now as brute facts driven by dogmatism against science and justified by an unparalleled literalistic approach to the scriptures. In her own words, “Christians began to read scripture with a literalness that is without parallel in religious history.”^[2]

I can only imagine that Armstrong is not talking about doctrines pertaining to resurrections or the trinity, but instead she is referring to the way that Christians understood the history of the world as explained in Genesis. If so, her claim is seriously misleading. Historically, good biblical hermeneutics (e.g. historical-grammatical exegesis) recognises that scripture uses various written forms at different times and in different places, and must be interpreted in light of that context. This is as true today as it was prior to the 17th century and it is the same principle that we apply to anything we read, from a good sci-fi novel or a Robert Frost poem, to the morning newspaper or a technical journal article, or even other historical works from different time periods.

In his treatment of this topic Andrew Kulikovsky says, “Analysis of the historical development of theological motifs is … ‘conspicuously absent’ from most theological works and commentaries” and “… there has been a great deal of misrepresentation of the church’s historical views concerning the Genesis cosmogony, the days of creation, and the age of the earth.”^[3] Armstrong in fact contributes to this misrepresentation with her implication concerning the position that Christians supposedly took only after the 17th century.

In fact, the apparent rise of what Armstrong calls literalism (a very improper use of the word in the context of this discussion but I’ll go with it for now at the risk of being misunderstood), the origin of which she appears to ascribe to Christian doctrines of the 17th century and beyond, can be found centuries – even millennia – prior to this and is representative of the view of many Christians since the beginning of Christianity.^[4][5] Even Augustine, whom Armstrong uses as an example of the allegorical approach to scripture, still believed that the creation of the world took place in an instant – rather than the widely held six literal days – and defended a recent creation against the long-age views of his time.^[6]

In his book review of The Genesis Debate (Edited by David G. Hagopian) Andrew Kulikovsky also says, “…probably the most valuable element of [Hall and Duncan's] contribution [to The Genesis Debate] is their summary of the history of interpretation of the Creation days, which clearly demonstrates that the literal day view was the dominant view up to the time of the scientific revolution.” Notice again, that this is completely opposite to the apparent claims of Armstrong!

Unfortunately that is not the worst part of Armstrong’s response. When she decides to part ways with the kinds of relatively straight-forward arguments that Dawkins offers, some of her comments can be politely describe as fluff.^[7]

Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace; today, however, many have opted for unsustainable certainty instead. But can we respond religiously to evolutionary theory? Can we use it to recover a more authentic notion of God?

Darwin made it clear once again that—as Maimonides, Avicenna, Aquinas and Eckhart had already pointed out—we cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the “God beyond God.” The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and which cannot easily be put into words. At its best, it holds us in an attitude of wonder, which is, perhaps, not unlike the awe that Mr. Dawkins experiences—and has helped me to appreciate —when he contemplates the marvels of natural selection.

But what of the pain and waste that Darwin unveiled? All the major traditions insist that the faithful meditate on the ubiquitous suffering that is an inescapable part of life; because, if we do not acknowledge this uncomfortable fact, the compassion that lies at the heart of faith is impossible. The almost unbearable spectacle of the myriad species passing painfully into oblivion is not unlike some classic Buddhist meditations on the First Noble Truth (“Existence is suffering”), the indispensable prerequisite for the transcendent enlightenment that some call Nirvana—and others call God.

No doubt her affiliation with the Jesus Seminar and her pluralistic views of religion put her in good stead to make such a fluffy assessment? She is quite clearly not a Christian. I read and listen to a lot of Christian theists and apologists and after a while you develop a kind of sixth sense for those who actually take the Christian worldview seriously and those who do not. Based largely on the fluff, Armstrong appears to be one of the latter,^[8][9] despite whatever protests she may make to the contrary.  This, as you will see, is obvious even to Dawkins.

On Dawkins

Dawkins response to this question on the other hand was quite clear. As a Christian and a serious skeptic of the evolutionary worldview that Dawkins champions, I could find many points on which to disagree with his contribution. However, I particularly liked the plain talking in his concluding remarks, which leave no-one with any doubt about his position.

Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God’s redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least [be] as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place. … The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They’ll be right. [emphasis mine]

Dawkins may not have had prior knowledge of Armstrong’s comments, but it appears that he had a very good idea of what to expect, because his comments appear tailored to address the kind of fluff espoused by “theists” like Armstrong – and I use that term very loosely because I wonder how the term should even apply to those who so completely embrace the evolutionary world view.

How should Christians respond

I don’t see why Christians should respond any different to an atheist on this question. In fact Dawkins’ closing remarks will do quite nicely, at least as a start. If you understand the two systems properly, you know that the two of them are mutually exclusive. If evolution is true, Christianity must be false, and any attempts to make the two agree is futile, resulting in theological and philosophical inconsistencies. Charles Spurgeon knew it. Dawkins knows it. Informed Christians know it. Armstrong doesn’t, or doesn’t seem to think it matters.

Summary

Obviously my critique has been much less about the claims of Dawkins and focused more on the way Armstrong attempted to answer the question. Why? Well given the question being discussed I knew exactly what to expect from Dawkins and he did not disappoint. He’s had a lot of practice articulating his view and does it well for the most part. I also think Dawkins is right in his assessment if the evolutionary world view is true. Theistic Evolutionist’s will, by definition, disagree.

But I have a particular intolerance for theological positions that attempt to make these systems agree (especially when it is laced with postmodern language) and that is why I spent so much time analysing how Armstrong chose to answer this question. By the end of it I really thought she just should not have bothered. There was very little substance in there for serious thinkers. That does not mean that some people will not find her comments appealing - that is, once they figure out exactly what it is they want her words to mean? But I think Christians who care about the truth and do not simply want their ears tickled,^[10] will quickly realise they have very little in common with Armstrong’s views and that is probably because Armstrong herself is not a Christian.

That The Australian framed this as a debate should embarrass them. But I really wish they would not give Karen Armstrong further opportunities to muddy the waters of Christian theism. There are others who are more capable of bringing clarity to this topic than Armstrong,^[1] and if these two responses are weighed on those merits, Dawkins did a much better job of clarifying his position – even if he is still woefully wrong (not to mention lost).

But what if we reverse the question; What if we Christians who hold the scriptures in the highest regard were to ponder this instead: ”Where does God leave evolution?” Is the engine room of evolution - mutations and natural selection (and the evolutionary biologists that rely on such dogma) – now “out of a job”? See, the question is never phrased that way because God is seen as an unreal subjective concept that must conform to the truth of evolution.  But rather, did Jesus not say, I am the way and the truth and the life? What then are the implications for evolution if Christ speaks the truth; if God’s revelation is true? Should we not answer as Spurgeon did – “If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie.”

1. The best response I have heard by a Christian on this topic is by John Woodmorappe, upon which the title of this post is based. His response is not so much concerned with the moral implications of evolution, but instead his brief essay deals largely with the nonsensical idea of God-guided evolution. I understand also that Dinesh D’Souza is quite a formidable defender of Christianity and a Theistic Evolutionist to boot. However I have not had enough exposure to his views to know how he might answer this question.
2. Yeah, “religious history” … as opposed to real history, apparently? The juxtaposition of these two words imply that the history recorded in the Bible is of no more significance to Armstrong than the history of the universe according to Star Wars (i.e. George Lucas), the history of Middle Earth according to Tolkien, or the history of Midkemia according to Feist. However when talking about evolutionary history, evolution is an apparent redundancy!
3. Kulikovsky, Andrew S., Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation, (Mentor, Scotland, 2009), p.59
4. Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Compromise, (Master Books, Arizona, 2004), Chapter 3 “The History of Interpretation of Genesis 1-11″, p.107-139
5. Much of the first paragraph (below) is deduced from page 67 of Kulikovsky’s new book, ‘Creation, Fall, Restoration’:
   The reason Armstrong believes that “literalism” emerged from the 17th century is because there was a major philosophical shift occurring in the church throughout this period. Principles and ideas external to Scripture, especially Greek philosophy, had an increasing influence on both the church and society as a whole. So in the 17th century church creeds began to include and uphold six literal creation days, because many others in the church influenced by the philosophies of men began to formulate alternative interpretations in light of this new “evidence” for the great antiquity of the earth. Episcopius’ (1586-1643) Gap Theory for example, proposed a long period of time passing between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
   It is quite a normal thing to expect creeds be developed to defend and make clear what was already accepted. The Nicene creed (325AD) for example defended the nature of Christ against Arius, who declared that Jesus was a created being, which was also an attack on the Trinity. But as is quite obvious from Scripture and other ancient writings, Christians did not suddenly begin believing this in the 4th century. Rather, creeds act as yardsticks to correct beliefs. The same thing was happening in the 17th century with regard to the “literalism” that Armstrong thinks appears without precedence.
6. Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Compromise, (Master Books, Arizona, 2004), Chapter 3 “The History of Interpretation of Genesis 1-11″, p.118-119
7. Similarly, what I call fluff, Albert Mohler calls “elegant nonsense”. See his review of the same article here.
8. In a review of Karen Armstrong’s book The Bible: A Biography, Alexander Carpenter quotes her as saying, “It doesn’t really matter what you believe as long as it leads you to practical compassion.”
9. I also place Peter Sellick in this category, although his language is slightly less “fluffy”. See my review of his 2005 article “Intelligent Design – Damaging Good Science and Good Theology” [note: this is a link to my old website. I will be reviewing this article and reposting on Aristophrenium in the near future, at which point the old article will be removed and this link will be updated]
10. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires” – 2 Timothy 4:3 [NASB]

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• The Greatest Hoax on Earth (4)

Jonathan Sarfati’s response to Richard Dawkins’ latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth is quite adequately titled The Greatest Hoax on Earth.

Note, this is not a book review as I haven’t even yet had the privilege of holding it my hands, let alone read any of it. But having read many of the articles and books that Dr. Sarfati produces, knowing also that he has a high authority for scripture, and having seen/heard him debate and speak in person on several occasions, I can hardly think of a person I’d rather read in response to Dawkins.

From CMI’s store-page advertisement:

Richard Dawkins, the undisputed high priest of evolution/atheism, says his book The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution is the first time he has presented all the evidence for evolution/long ages. It is promoted as an unanswerable demolition of creation. Scientist, logician, chessmaster and author of the world’s biggest-selling creationist book, CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, relentlessly demolishes Dawkin’s claims point-by-point, showing biblical creation makes more sense of the evidence.

The introductory chapter of the book is available to read for free online.

The book is only AU$20 for single orders. But if you can spare it I’d recommend you fork out the extra 20 bucks and get two additional recent DVD presentations by Dr. Sarfati as well: Evolution and the Holocaust and Leaving Your Brains at the Church Door

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• How to Yoke an Invisible Horse to a Tractor (0)
• Separation of Creation and Science (8)
• The meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1 (5)

The argument

To briefly refresh our minds, allow me to repeat what his argument had been. (And we must keep in mind that it targeted the biblical God.)

(1) If God exists, then God is necessarily omnipotent and necessarily triune.

(2) If God is necessarily omnipotent, then God necessarily can bring about any logically possible state of affairs.

(3) If God necessarily can bring about any logically possible state of affairs, then God necessarily can bring about a state of affairs that is brought about by a being that is not necessarily triune.

(4) If God necessarily can bring about a state of affairs that is brought about by a being that is not necessarily triune, then God is not necessarily triune.

(5) Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

As I pointed out in my rebuttal, this argument does not belong to LeBlanc so much as it belongs to atheologist Michael Martin, [1] with LeBlanc substituting “triune” for every instance that Martin used “omniscient.” Given the doctrine of divine simplicity, such a substitution should be acceptable for the Christian.

What Martin was trying to show, and by extension LeBlanc, is that the existence of God is disproven by reason of logical contradiction; i.e., that God cannot exist. He takes two particular attributes of God and attempts to show that a contradiction results. In the case of this argument, those attributes are omnipotence and triunity.

As indicated in my aforementioned rebuttal, (1) and (2) are not contested since they reflect orthodox Christian doctrine. With regard to (3), LeBlanc later informed me that “a being that is not necessarily triune” would be some human, such as Bob who in some way caused flooding in Toronto (e.g., “Ryft on ‘A Possible Disproof of God’s Existence’”). Consequently, my previous rebuttal loses its traction, since I hadn’t understood that a secondary being was playing a relevant role (i.e., I’d thought God was the only being employed in his argument). But his argument is not saved by this clarification, since the derailment occurs now at (4) instead.

The analysis

We can accept (1) and (2), and it seems we can also accept (3) if it is predicated on God bringing about a state of affairs that was brought about by Bob. However, it’s not at all clear how (4) should follow. If God should bring about (principal cause) a state affairs that is brought about by Bob (instrumental cause), [2] how does it follow that God’s nature is thereby identical to Bob’s nature? That is, how did God become not triune by virtue of Bob being not triune? LeBlanc does not say, nor is it immediately obvious.

Perhaps LeBlanc rejects there being any distinction between types of causes, such that God is said to be the instrumental cause of all effects. If that is the case, then I think it becomes obvious how (4) follows. But if God is the instrumental cause of all effects, then all effects (or states of affairs) amount to “God in motion”—which in essence amounts to panentheism and is dramatically antithetical to God as revealed in the Bible (who the argument is intended to address, i.e., it qualifies as a straw man). So if that notion and its presuppositions are what is proposed by (4), then it must run afoul of such doctrines as aseity, necessary being, divine simplicity, transcendence and so forth, which tell us that necessarily nothing of God’s nature is identical to his creation. What God ordains should come to pass (principal cause) is a product of his nature; however, the means by which it comes to pass (instrumental cause) is a product of his creation which he exists independent of. So Bob by nature is not necessarily triune, but this has no bearing on whether or not God by nature is triune.

Hopefully I have not misunderstood his argument still. We’ll have to wait and see how he responds to find out if I’ve grasped his point aright.

References

1. Michael Martin. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Temple University Press, 1990. p. 310 (as cited by LeBlanc).

2. Bob: instrumental cause that is itself an effect; contingent. God: principal cause that is not itself an effect; necessary. So, not identical; i.e., distinguishable types of causes.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Mitchell LeBlanc and an Argument for Atheism (4)
• Transcendental Argument for God: Mitchell LeBlanc, Pt. 1 (10)
• Gratuitous Evil: Q&A (28/Feb/2010) (2)
• Atheism and the Problem of Evil: Pt. 1 (0)

(HT: Chris Bolt at Choosing Hats.)

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Transcendental Argument for God: Mitchell LeBlanc, Pt. 1 (10)

According to a recent SMH article, the South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board decided to ban the teaching of creationism as part of the science curriculum.

Under policies published in December, the board said it required “teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis.”

The SMH article provides an opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues relating to creationism and science. However I only want to make one simple point about the misconceived relationship between the two.

To put it simply (as the SA board have done), the empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis – watch this – is an integral part of creationism. It’s not anti-science or non-science, but values the scientific method as a way to understand the world in which we live. The two are very much homogenous, in the same way that materialists might view the relationship between evolution and science.

Science is the study of the natural world, which Christians would say is the study of the world God created. While materialists don’t accept a Christian worldview, we all still live in the same world and so we all have access to exactly the same evidence.

In studying this evidence however, materialists must draw conclusions shaped by materialist presuppositions. Appeals to design (implying a designer) are not allowed. The fallacy of this objection is that it presumes that the design argument is an appeal to ignorance. However the inference of design is based on an analogy of what we do know scientifically, not what we don’t. So Christians are not limited by a materialistic paradigm. This doesn’t mean that creationists invoke God-of-the-gaps solutions to problems that the materialist’s paradigm cannot currently resolve. But it means that they approach the evidence with the view that God created and that God’s word provides clues about the world which can inform our presuppositions for understanding the evidence. A practical example of this is the work of PhD physicists Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. John Hartnett, who have both proposed models for the universe to rival popular big bang cosmology.

In fact given that modern science had its beginnings in a Christian framework, creationism (or, creation science) is not really such a heresy, is it? For example:

• The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
• Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
• Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
• The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
• The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’. Kepler also calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, close to Ussher’s.
• The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
• Vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner (1749–1823—note that Darwin published Origin in 1859)
• Antisepsis by Joseph Lister, creationist.(1827–1912)
• Anaesthesia by James Young Simpson (1811–1870), who believed that God was the first anaesthetist, citing Genesis 2:21.
• Germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur, creationist (1822–1895), who disproved spontaneous generation…
• Antibiotics, developed without the slightest input of evolution, by the serendipitous discovery by Alexander Fleming (1881–1955), who had previously discovered lysozyme, the ‘body’s own antibiotic’. And Ernst Chain (1906–1979), who shared the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine with Fleming (and Howard Florey (1898–1968)) for discovering penicillin, was a devout Orthodox Jew and anti-Darwinian. His biography noted ‘Chain’s dismissal of Darwin’s theory of evolution’, and his belief that ‘evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation—and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view’. As an understanding of the development of life, Chain said, ‘a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.’ And speaking of certain evolutionary examples, he exclaimed, ‘I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’
• Insulin: its vital function was first discovered by the creationist Nicolae Paulescu (1869–1931), who named it ‘pancreine’. He anticipated the discoveries of Frederick Banting and John Macleod, who were awarded the 1923 Nobel Prize for Medicine for their work on insulin.
• In modern times, we have the outspoken biblical creationist Raymond Damadian (1936–), inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner, and Graeme Clark (1935–), the inventor of the Cochlear bionic ear who is a Christian.

http://creation.com/science-creation-and-evolutionism-refutation-of-nas

The way the MSM often portrays creationism gives the impression that “creation science” is a false dichotomy and that somehow creation is a threat to science. In fact, it is often referred to as pseudo-science. Yet many of the creationists work that I study is done by men and women with PhD’s in their field, publishing not only in creationist journals, but secular journals also. They didn’t achieve any of this by disparaging the scientific method. Quite the opposite in fact. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati also notes that:

…Copernicus, as well as Galileo, Kepler and Newton, were all young earth creationists. They never saw their discoveries as a threat to their biblical worldview. But they were a threat to the secular Aristotelian science consensus of their day, which is why the Aristotelians were Galileo’s staunchest foes.

http://creation.com/science-creation-and-evolutionism-refutation-of-nas

Likewise I propose that creationism is being excluded not because it is incompatible with operational science, but because it is a threat to the popular philosophy of the day, materialism.

[And lest you conclude that I am advocating the mandatory teaching of creation in schools (Christian or otherwise), at least read the first link below]

Recommended for further reading:
The Teaching of Creation in Schools
Creation Scientists
Richard Lewontin Quote

Creation Ministries International published an article today on this very topic.

Excerpt:

From the Board’s statements, even schools which avoid the issue of Genesis history, creation in six days, global Flood and so on cannot even use the ‘ID’ approach. This reasons from the evidence of biology and biochemistry etc. merely to logically deduce, on the basis of empirical observations, that the mechanisms proposed by evolution simply could not have generated the vast complexity of living systems; the inference from observation is that they required an intelligent (unnamed) agent. Even this ultra-low-key approach is now made impossible in SA Christian schools, because it can be said to ‘reflect’ a religious text, albeit very indirectly. So science teachers in Christian schools could not lawfully encourage their students to even reflect on whether the awesome design in the molecular machinery of living cells might suggest that God had a hand in it!

Full article here.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• The Greatest Hoax on Earth (4)
• The meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1 (5)

I’ve felt what seems like a calling to get into Christian apologetics, for which a competent grasp of logical reasoning and good debate skills are needed. But there is one thing that bothers me a little.

After observing relevant discussions online, such as on forums, I noticed that it can be rather easy to allow debating skills to take over, rather than allow for the Holy Spirit to work through me. This is something I have seen not only in myself but also other Christians. Now, I realize that such discussions might not lead someone to repent and believe, so for that reason I find myself thinking I should rather rely on God’s guidance than my ability to sustain a strong argument in a debate.

My question for you is, “What is your experience on this issue?” That is, how do you keep from going into debate mode, as it were, keeping the focus on God and his Word? Surely it is not about relying on mental acuity, like having a better grasp of logic than someone else—or in some cases being the one whose back is against the wall because their line of reasoning forced me there. How do we engage on God’s Word rather than man’s mental sparring?

I guess things will differ from person to person. From one of Paul’s letters it seems like there was a time once when “Jesus loves you” was the only thing needed, really. We live in such different times now.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with us. The staff at the Aristophrenium welcome and appreciate genuine feedback from our visitors.

As I read your email, I detected two separate concerns being expressed as a singular one; and given the nature of those two concerns, I can tell you that it is common for people to conflate them. There is the issue of proclaiming the gospel (evangelization) on the one hand, and defending the gospel (apologetics) on the other. In both respects you are correct to speak about the need for the Holy Spirit to guide us through the efforts. But sometimes when evangelizing there arises a need for apologetics, where the latter is used for removing obstacles against the former. In developed countries, like in North America and Australia, evangelization and apologetics typically go together, leading to the tendency of conflating them.

When it comes to deciding between proclaiming or defending the gospel, or doing both but emphasizing one over the other, the circumstance typically dictates the need. In all cases the Holy Spirit is at work, but (a) sometimes you might be part of the front line effort, so your energies go into defending the gospel, (b) while sometimes much of that front line work has already been done before you, so your energies can be invested in proclaiming the gospel. Both when and where you are called, and into what sort of circumstances, all depends on the sort of work the Holy Spirit has gifted you to do, for there are as many circumstances as gifts suited to meet them. Some are gifted with teaching, some with healing, some with wisdom, etc. As the apostle Paul said, the foot is no less important than the eye, nor should the ear despair being just an ear. We are the body of Christ and God has arranged us, as parts of that body, exactly as he wanted. The body is one, though it has many parts.

Whether or not one should develop critical thinking skills, such as understanding logic and common fallacies in reasoning, will depend on the area to which God has called the person. I would be inclined to think that if you feel a pull toward that direction then it may very well be that God has deemed it an essential component to your individual ministry. But try to keep in mind one fundamentally important thing: never divorce the power of philosophical instruments from the God in whom their authority is found (e.g., the very intelligibility of logic is grounded in the God of the Bible). We reason properly only when it is consistent with his divine revelations, whether knowingly as believers or intuitively as unbelievers.

When it comes to defending the truth of the gospel against those who would attack it, one of the operating principles at the Aristophrenium is 2 Corinthians 10:5, that those who belong to the living God demolish strongholds only by divine power. “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” There is no truth but that which belongs to the knowledge of God; that is, if we hold a strong argument in a debate, it is only by the Word of God for the glory of his holy name. As for the strength or effectiveness of our arguments, it is never by reasoning or wisdom apart from God. He is the final point of predication in all things, so that in all argumentation we strive to operate by three inseparable principles: the truth of God as our beginning, the Word of God as our means, and glorifying God as our end.

And finally, with regard to demolishing arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, there are times when it is helpful to assume for the sake of argument your opponent’s particular view. In apologetics this is known as the ‘presuppositional’ method, where we assume the opponent’s view in order to show that it fails under its own terms. Although we know their view is false (because it defies the sovereign authority of God), they don’t acknowledge their view is false; so we grant their view for the sake of argument to show how, under its own terms, it completely falls apart. That is why we say the only truth is that which belongs to the knowledge of God, because every view otherwise contrary fails to sustain itself. Only the truth of God stands forever. And once we’ve shown that their view falls apart under its own terms, while the truth of God stands firm under its own terms (this is apologetics), we confront a unique opportunity—right then or later, by God’s will—to present the message of the gospel (this is evangelization). So there is no trick to it, no superior worldly wisdom. Apart from God, the world has no wisdom. From start to finish it was the truth of God through his Word to the glory his name.

How does one keep that sort of spiritual mentality in their confrontations in the world? There is no way other than a life of prayer and study of the holy Scriptures. The deeper one cultivates their relationship with God and knowledge of him, the greater that God blesses their giftedness in the field to which he has called them. The more you rely on God, the greater he empowers you as an instrument of the gospel and the truth that is in him. Read the Bible constantly, pray always, and seek to glorify God in all things.

And realize that whether or not someone accepts Christ has nothing to do with you. One plants, another waters, but it is God who makes it grow, for the power of the gospel (whether by evangelization or apologetics) resides not in your words but in the Holy Spirit. You could give a terrible presentation of the gospel and have someone repent and believe; or you could give the best presentation of the gospel that this world has ever seen and have someone reject it and walk away. Among the Jews and God-fearing Greeks at the Areopagus, only a few followed Paul and believed. And try to remember that there are times when, in your apologetics efforts, God may choose to place you in a circumstance not so much for the sake of your opponent as for the sake of those who are witnessing the encounter; it may be that there is a believer whose weakened faith is strengthened by the defense of God’s truth that she heard you present.

Once again, thank you for writing to us with your feedback. I pray that this response has spoken to your concerns.

In the name of Christ our peace,

The Aristostaff

Most Commented Posts

• Exist or real? (22)
• Hidden Opponents (13)
• A different religion in classrooms (11)
• Transcendental Argument for God: Mitchell LeBlanc, Pt. 1 (10)
• Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence (10)
• How to Stump an Atheist (9)
• Morality Without God? (8)

The use of pictures does have its place; the use of factual pictures entomb the truths of an event for future generations. One man who understood this in totality was General Eisenhower who, on visiting the Nazi concentration camp at Ohrdruf on April 12th, 1945, ordered that every citizen of the nearby town of Gotha visit the camp; that media personnel make full documentation; and that military cameras be sure to capture the horrific scene, immortalizing in photographs the barbarity and cruelty.

Said Eisenhower, “I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’”^[1] Eisenhower envisaged that the documentation was necessary because, at point in the future, he believed there would be people who would deny that such astrocities ever took place, perhaps thinking them some elaborate conspiracy to stir the hearts and cloud the minds of a gullible people. Yet there are groups who deny the holocaust; I’m sure Eisenhower would not be surprised.

Consequently, are graphic pictures permissible when arguing one’s case against abortion? If they’re factual, accurate and true, then there can be no reason why not. Former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson found an ultrasound of an abortion procedure to be compelling enough to quit her job of sevens years^[2]. And even ardent pro-choice feminist Noami Wolf concedes that those who champion abortion must not shy away from factual depictions of abortion:

The pro‐choice movement often treats with contempt the pro‐lifer’s practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics … How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro‐lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro‐choice women to be confronted with them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view is unworthy of feminism.^[3]

Apologist and Christian thinker Greg Koukl, of Stand to Reason, writing in his article titled Why Abortion is a Yawner for Biola magazine, says:

To halt the yawns and revitalize interest, pro-lifers must visually awaken moral sensibilities. We must move the debate from the abstract question of “choice” to the concrete issue of dead babies. We must show what abortion does … [Effectively using abortion images will injure the pro-abortion cause] precisely because [they do not] not focus on what abortion does for the mother, but rather on what abortion does to the child. Pro-lifers had forced abortion backers to do the one thing they don’t want to do: defend killing babies. Pro-choice advocate Katherine Kohlbert admitted that if the debate is on what happens to the unborn, her side will “get creamed.”^[4]

In my dealings (limited as that may be) with pro-choice advocates, they resort to all sorts of rhetoric and red herrings to avoid having to defend the position of killing babies. Yet this is precisely what they must be burdened to do as abortion does exactly that: kill unborn human beings.

If you’re pro-choice, Ms Wolf would want you to view this video and to accept the harsh reality of your position. If you’re pro-life, this video will compel you to speak out against abortion even more. If you’re undecided, this video is likely to stir up some strong emotions – hopefully strong enough to make you think twice about advocating for abortion and perhaps powerful enough to make you want to do something for the pro-life cause (even if it’s just sharing the video with others).

(Warning: the video is graphic.)

[Hat Tip to Live Action via Facebook for the link to the video. If the video did not display correctly for you, you'll find the original at herestheblood.com]

Given the brutal reality of abortion, it is a fair enough question to ask what are the real motivations behind the multi-million dollar abortion mill industry and what are the real reasons why people advocate for such a “choice”. Mother Theresa seemed to hit the nail on the head – social vanity:

The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn’t learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.^[5]

Is selfishness really reason enough to justify the act of killing innocent human beings, in utero? Is there any reason at all?

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Pro-birth: too painful to bring to term (3)
• Devils, Demons and Double Standards (2)

(1) To affirm that Gratuitous Evil has a probability greater than zero is to affirm that Gratuitous Evil is possible, by definition.

(2) To affirm that Gratuitous Evil is possible is to affirm that the Biblical God is impossible, by definition.

(3) To affirm that the Biblical God is impossible (implicitly or explicitly) within a premise of an argument against the existence thereof commits the fallacy of begging the question.

Well then the problem is that, under Christian presuppositions, gratuitous evil doesn’t exist; and your argument is sound under such presuppositions.

That being the case—and it is—one might notice that he forgot to mention who it is a ‘problem’ for. And if I may point out the obvious: “Not for Christians.” As a matter of fact, that is substantively the basis upon which the Christian can trust in the loving providence of God through painful or troubled times; i.e., given the God in whom we place our love, trust, and obedience, no evil that befalls us could ever be gratuitous (Eccl. 7:14; Rom. 8:28; Ps. 71:20; Heb. 12:7-11; 1 Pet. 5:7-10; and so forth).

However, in reality there are gratuitous evils—such as natural disasters.

Pointing to some natural disaster and asserting that it is a gratuitous evil is just that: an assertion; and according to generally accepted standards of sound reasoning, bare assertions are not rationally decisive. To possess rational merit, his assertion must be turned into a conclusion with premises that at least validly support it. We have his assertion that natural disasters are gratuitous evils but not any reason to think that is true, while under the Christian view we have an abundance of reason to think it false.

I have no sufficient reason to believe that [natural disasters] are the result of rebellion against God (cf. definition of evil). That being so, the Christian God then isn’t consistent with reality.

It is a stark error in reasoning to go from “I have no sufficient reason to believe X” and conclude that “therefore X is false” (i.e., contrary to reality). The fact that you do not have sufficient reason to believe X says something about your research diet but it says nothing about the truth or falsehood of X itself—for thinking that something is false or contrary to reality on the basis that it has not been proven true is the argumentum ad ignorantiam error. Remember, an absence of sufficient reason is good support for your not believing X, but it is bad support for you thinking that X is false (“isn’t consistent with reality”).

And perhaps just as important to note: the fact that you don’t have sufficient reason is a rather different matter from whether or not sufficient reason exists to be had. Do you have good reason? It seems not, if we take your word. Does that mean good reason does not exist? Non-sequitur; i.e., the one does not follow from the other. I can sympathize that you don’t have good reason, but remember: that’s autobiographical information. It does not mean that good reason doesn’t exist to be had. So then this is an opportune time to ask the easily neglected question: “Exactly what have you done to acquire that sufficient reason you need?” If little or nothing, then it would make sense why you do not have it.

Do you have evidence that natural disasters happen because of rebellions against God?

A fair amount, actually, yes. For example, the rebellion of Korah and his men, plus several thousand Israelites who had taken their side: an earthquake and fire destroyed Korah and his men, and a plague killed those who sided with their rebellion.

By having defined morality in reference to the nature and character of God, Ryft effectively precluded any possible existence of evil (by implying that everything God does is non-evil by definition). So then if God is the standard of morality, no evil can exist—gratuitous or otherwise.

Incorrect. The character and commands of God does not preclude the existence of evil by definition; on the contrary, it allows for and explains evil. However, it does preclude gratuitous evil by definition; given the God of Christian theism, it is impossible for any evil to be unwarranted or purposeless.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Atheism and the Problem of Evil: Pt. 1 (0)
• Hidden Opponents (13)
• Mitchell LeBlanc and a Disproof of God (3)
• Mitchell LeBlanc and an Argument for Atheism (4)

In October 2006 I responded to the position held by Sandy Grant as described in his article “Reading Genesis”, published in the October 2006 edition of Matthias Media’s The Briefing. This was followed by another post in August 2007 after Sandy took the opportunity to clarify his position, believing that I had misrepresented him^[1]. I am quite aware that Sandy’s views are popular among Sydney Anglicans and The Briefing is widely promoted amongst Sydney Anglican churches. In fact during discussions I have had with informed Anglicans on this topic since October 2006, Grant’s article is often cited as an argument against a straight-forward reading of Genesis 1.

However while I believe I dealt with Sandy’s position (and objections) fairly in my previous posts, there were some additional points raised by Sandy in August 2007 that I will address now. In doing so I hope to demonstrate that a straight-forward reading of the early chapters of Genesis^[2] is the most sensible and that the kinds of objections that Sandy raises come from an unnecessary compromised theology that cannot be sustained.

Objection 1. “The highly stylized literary structure of Genesis 1 [is] atypical of ordinary historical genre.”

Response:

To the contrary it reads very much like ordinary historical genre for several reasons, some of which are:

1. Jesus quotes it as straight-forward history. For example in Matthew 19:4-6, when Jesus is explaining the foundation of marriage, he quotes from Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:24 as straight-forward history – “Haven’t you read…”
2. Use of the waw consecutive imperfect verb (i.e. the English “and”), typical in Hebrew historical narrative. e.g. “and he did…”, “and he said…”, “and he went…”, which basically means that it reads like any other typical historical account in the Pentateuch.
3. Equally, the lack of a clear delineation between the style of Gen 1 and the subsequent sections of the book, which read as typical historical accounts (see point 5 below for an expanded argument on this point).
4. From CMI’s booklet 15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History^[3]:

   The strongest structural parallel of Gen. 1 is Num. 7:10–84. Both are structured accounts, both contain the Hebrew word for day (yôm) with a numeric—indeed both are numbered sequences of days, and both have a series of waw consecutives. In Num. 7, each of the 12 tribes brought an offering on the different days:

   The one who brought his offering on the first day was Nahshon, son of Amminadab of the tribe of Judah. … On the second day Nethanel son of Zuar, the leader of Issachar, brought his offering. … On the third day, Eliab son of Helon, the leader of the people of Zebulun, brought his offering. … On the twelfth day Ahira son of Enan, the leader of the people of Naphtali, brought his offering. …

   In this structured narrative (Num. 7) with a sequence of numbered days, no one claims that it is merely a poetic framework for teaching something theological and that it is not history. No one doubts that the days in Num. 7 are ordinary days, so there simply is no grammatical basis for denying the same for the Gen. 1 days. That is, Gen. 1 is straightforward history.

5. The RATE Project’s statistical language analysis on the genre of Genesis 1 demonstrating that it is most certainly to be understood as historical prose^[4]; much like the structure used throughout all of Genesis and most of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc. The study included the survey and sampling of 97 Old Testament passages from all three major divisions in the Hebrew Bible that were previously identified as falling into one of two genres, historical narrative and poetry. Two of the methods used for data arrangement and analysis were a Scatter Plot and a Logistic Regression Curve. The result from the logistic regression curve is that Gen 1:1-2:3 is statistically classified as narrative with a probability of 0.9999 (see below).

[Image from Thousands... Not Billions by Dr. Don DeYoung, second printing November 2005, page 166. Used with permission from the publisher - Master Books, Green Forest, AR; copyright 2005]

[Image from Thousands... Not Billions by Dr. Don DeYoung, second printing November 2005, page 168. Used with permission from the publisher - Master Books, Green Forest, AR; copyright 2005]

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• The Greatest Hoax on Earth (4)
• Separation of Creation and Science (8)

When it comes to arguments for atheism, that is, arguments for the non-existence of God, [1] none are considered so compelling as the Problem of Evil category of arguments—not only by atheists but for some reason also by many Christians. It is my contention that such a state of affairs exists for one overriding reason: that much of the general public (atheists and Christians alike) have not been taught how and therefore don’t know how to evaluate arguments critically. Starting around the turn of the last century and persisting to present day, as a society we all at once fell for the seductive allowances of postmodernism, shifted our obligations from family and society to radical individualism, and laid out a minefield of political correctness that a person dares trespass only on pain of being ostracized. “To argue for truth today is to stir an immediate debate,” noted Ravi Zacharias, “as if a heresy of devilish proportions has been invoked.”

So critical thinking skills, as instruments of evaluating truth claims and arguments, have incrementally lost value as items for our mental toolbox—especially since almost by definition they imply the existence of objective truths. If truth claims don’t or can’t describe reality objectively, always falling short of the task for one reason or another, then the tools for discerning objective truth claims grow rusty from disuse. Much more can be said on this, however I don’t wish to digress.

But for those who know what ‘validly’ means and how to reason accordingly, those who can tell the difference between an assumption and a conclusion, who are familiar with and can recognize errors in reasoning (fallacies), the more we interact with arguments for atheism the more we discover that none of them validly prove the non-existence of God, including the Problem of Evil versions. For a constellation of other reasons, I think this is why Greg Koukl, in his most recent Mentoring Letter, encouraged subscribers to engage criticisms head-on. “Sometimes it’s better to move towards an objection rather than away from it, to embrace a charge rather than run from it,” he writes. “In other words, don’t run from the problem; run towards it and defuse it. Don’t evade; invade.  Embrace it, undermine its relevance, and take the wind out of its sails.” [2]

In an effort to evaluate my position under the fire of critical scrutiny, I have recently begun engaging in a series of debates on Problem of Evil arguments for atheism, where my opponent is invited to defend whatever version thereof he or she feels best proves the non-existence of God. This article shall examine the first of these debates, which took place at the Debate.org web site. [3] As these debates conclude, at that site or some other location (e.g., message board, email, etc.), I will post another article here at the Aristophrenium evaluating the results thereof. Until it is defeated—assuming it even can be—I will continue to maintain my resolution, that “there are literally no versions of the Problem of Evil argument that succeed at proving the non-existence of God.”

Note: In all my arguments, on this and any other matter, the term ‘God’ always refers to God as revealed in Christian scripture canon (viz. the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testament) and possessing all the commonly recognized attributes thereof (e.g., trinitarian, omnipotent, righteous, sovereign, etc.). I have no interest in defending, nor do I even recognize the legitimacy of, any deity other than the God of Christian theism.

The definitions

Since evil is a moral term (sin, wrong, bad, etc.) it calls upon biblical meta-ethics, [4] which holds that moral order is grounded in the very nature and character of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. [5] As a result, evil is therefore a privative term expressing a want of conformity thereto (i.e., being contrary to his character or against his commands). Evil has no ontological substance; it is not a thing in itself but a term describing a breach of relationship between some agent or circumstance and the character and prescriptive will of God.

Given that moral order is grounded in the nature and character of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands, the term all-good therefore refers to the immutable consistency of God, his character, and his commands. To say, then, that God is all-good or infinitely benevolent is to say that God possesses no malevolence—i.e., exhibiting or wishing malicious harm to others—against which his benevolence might compete; yet it leaves room for God to possess more attributes than just benevolence, such as his just wrath against sin. Consequently, he is all-good in the sense of his eternal, unchanging character (e.g., God is not sometimes just, he is always just). The goodness of God is described thus: “As exercised with respect to the miseries of his creatures, it is mercy, pity, compassion; and in the case of impenitent sinners, long-suffering patience; as exercised in communicating favour on the unworthy, it is grace.” [6] (It must always be remembered that God is not strictly good; he is also righteous and just, etc.)

The argument

In the first of these debates my opponent, TheSkeptic, chose to use “gratuitous evil” to defeat my resolution, defending that such an argument indeed does succeed at proving that God does not exist, but probabilistically—in other words, his non-existence is more probable than the alternative. And in this debate my opponent proposed an internal critique, which simply means that he intended to make his case using Christianity’s own terms, so terms such as ‘God’ and ‘evil’, etc., are as defined biblically.

Stated as a modus tollens, his argument amounted to:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil probably does not exist.

2. Gratuitous evil probably exists.

3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God probably does not exist.

With respect to the first premise, he described gratuitous evil as being “incompatible” with the biblical God. Regarding the second premise, he described gratuitous evil as any evil that is “unwarranted or unjustified” or “pointless.”

The analysis

There are two problems with his argument, regarding each of the premises. First, it is incorrect to characterize gratuitous evil as being “incompatible” with God, insofar as that understates the matter tremendously. Given that the God at issue in this debate is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good, the existence of gratuitous evil is not a matter of probability—because its probability is zero! In other words, ‘gratuitous evil’ and ‘God’ are mutually exclusive entities in the same way that an Immovable Object and an Irresistible Force are. Either gratuitous evil exists or God exists; it is logically impossible—by the very definition of the terms involved—for both to exist.

In order for any evils to be gratuitous God must lack one of the given attributes. He has insufficient power, or he is unaware, or he is inattentive, or he is indifferent, etc. But to assert such a God is to build a straw man, which is invalid, so he cannot do this. Ergo, his first premise fails because it defies the agreed-upon definitions of the debate.

Second, it is therefore question-begging for him to assert that gratuitous evils probably exist, never mind how he intended to support that particular premise (which cannot be done validly at any rate). Consider the following exposition:

(GE = gratuitous evil; BG = biblical God)

4. If GE has a probability greater than zero, then GE is logically possible.

5. GE has a probability greater than zero.

6. Therefore, GE is logically possible.

Here (4) is uncontroversial, since it follows necessarily or by definition, but (5) and (6) prove the question-begging fallacy being committed by his argument:

7. If BG exists, then GE is not logically possible.

8. GE is logically possible.

9. Therefore, BG does not exist.

Here (7) follows by definition of the terms, and (8) is a restatement from (6). However, (8) shows us clearly why his argument commits the question-begging fallacy. For him to assert gratuitous evil as logically possible (cf. (5) above and (2) earlier) is for him to assert the existence of God as logically impossible. But doing so within a premise of an argument intended to prove the non-existence of God is to render the whole argument invalid by having implicitly begged the very question! As a result, his argument has rendered itself invalid by reason of a logical fallacy.

There is also the matter of any evils being gratuitous in the first place. If we construct the argument for it as a modus ponens, it might look like this:

(E = some evil)

10. If E is without warrant or purpose, then E is gratuitous.

11. E is without warrant or purpose.

12. Therefore, E is gratuitous.

Of course (10) is true by definition, so the issue centers on (11). How did he support the truth of (11)? By pointing to the lack of evidence for its alternative. But it commits the argument from ignorance for him to assert that (11) is “true until proven otherwise” so he cannot do that. Yes, there are cases when the presumption of truth (or falsehood) is a valid move; but it is an invalid move if doing so would end up begging the question, as it does with respect to his argument (such that the existence of gratuitous evil is said to count against the existence of God). It is for this reason that (11) is disqualified from the presumption of truth. So then he must prove that (11) is true, rather than presume its truth until proven otherwise. And good luck doing that validly.

I should also point out another slight problem in his argument. Toward supporting (11) and its probability, he said that “even after careful inspection of an example in which evil has occurred, there would be no good reason to believe that God would have an adequate reason to allow [it].” The problem is that his being unable to believe that God has a justification or purpose for some evil is not the issue, but whether or not God does in fact have one—or for his case, that God does not have one. But rationally speaking, being unable to imagine or conceive of something does not constitute as evidence for or against anything. Such is an argument from personal incredulity, which is a fallacy.

Conclusion

As a PoE argument proving the non-existence of God, it seems that the ‘gratuitous evil’ version cannot avoid rendering itself invalid by reason of logical fallacy. And when we consider the definitions of the terms involved, we discover that this argument turns out to be a logical version of PoE arguments, which not only infuses it with tremendous potential strength but also tightly controls the rules for defending it—or, on the other hand, makes it very easy to defeat. With a mental toolbox equipped to understand and recognize errors in reasoning (fallacies), we discover that no arguments attempting to prove the non-existence of God are valid, including the Problem of Evil versions.

References

1. Problem of Evil arguments can do one of two things: either demonstrate the non-existence of God or present a strong demand for a coherent theodicy. Though I’m interested in both, in this series I am concerning myself strictly with atheism and the PoE arguments used to defend it. Demonstrating the need for a coherent theodicy is not the same thing as proving the non-existence of God.
2. Greg Koukl. “Why It’s Smart to Agree With an Atheist… Sometimes.” Mentoring Letter, Stand to Reason. 1 February 2010. Print.
3. “The ‘Problem of Evil’ never succeeds (Attempt 1).” Debate.org. February 2010.
4. The term meta-ethics refers to the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with identifying and understanding the origin and meaning of ethical concepts, properties, statements, and attitudes, etc. While ethics deals with what is moral, meta-ethics deals with what morality is.
5. Scott B. Rae. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. p. 32.
6. "Goodness of God." Easton’s Bible Dictionary.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Gratuitous Evil: Q&A (28/Feb/2010) (2)
• Hidden Opponents (13)
• Mitchell LeBlanc and a Disproof of God (3)
• Mitchell LeBlanc and an Argument for Atheism (4)