Dr. Craig’s Response to the Problem of Evil
Take a look at this great synopsis of Dr. William Lane Craig’s work on the problem of evil in these two, short, wonderfully-produced videos.
Strengths
(1) The video aptly rebuts the logical problem of evil. Any atheist who continues to assert the logical problem of evil in response must reformulate his logical argument in a different way or show where the reasoning fails.
(2) J.L. Mackie and William Rowe were prominent atheists. Quoting J.L. Mackie and William Rowe against the logical problem of evil shows how even prominent atheists have rejected its force.
Weaknesses
The video does not explain the distinction between the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. Since these are “inside baseball” terms in the philosophy of religion, many people won’t know the jargon. When this topic arises in conversation, always make the proper distinctions (see this post for more on that).
Strengths
(1) The three-fold list of responses provides a variety of helpful discussion points for the theist in conversation. Any one of them can be used to mitigate the force of the evidential problem of evil, and taken together, they represent a strong rebuttal. Here’s the three-fold list:
- We’re not in position to say that God probably lacks reasons for evil and suffering in the world.
- Relative to the full scope of evidence, God’s existence may well be probable.
- Christian doctrines increase the probability of the coexistence of evil and suffering.
(2) The video expresses an understanding that evil and suffering still pose an enormous practical problem even when the intellectual difficulty dissolves. If you expect cold, rigorous logic to immediately effect a change of heart in someone going through deep suffering, you need to change your expectations.
Weaknesses
The video assumes God is in a “judge-able” position when it comes to evil. That, if we only knew all of the reasons behind everything that went on, we would surely find God not guilty of bad behavior. Contrary to this thesis, Brian Davies argues that God is radically different from us, and that He cannot be judged as simply one more moral agent among others.
I articulate some more details on this in my review of Davies’ great book.
I made a response to Craig’s video, which can be viewed here — https://youtu.be/He1k7ffv32A
Pretty good arguments overall. By WL Craig, that is.
It´s interesting to see how Craig´s “Christian doctrines” are framed in relation to the context question, “Is God´s existence compatible with suffering?”
The visions of happiness in the video, the “American dream” or the European American dream, or the modern sci-tech abundance dream, is itself a specific sociohistorical development and value system. It is based on the various forms of materialism: economic, secular, and scientific that have in fact developed in Jesus´ legacy.
That´s the approach that I´ve found sound, based on my own atheist humanist upbringing, original interfaith spiritual seeking, and liberal arts Biological Anthropology college education as foundations. The created Universe is lawful, as the University-based monk Thomas of Aquinas already suspected as he identified the four basic areas of lawful study and knowledge: Natural Law, Human Law, Divine Law, and Eternal Law.
Pain is a basic biological phenomenon. Human suffering has involved human behavior, and psycho-biological tendencies to indulge in the abuse of power, privilege, and pleasure. From Mesopotamia to China to India to Africa to North and South America, cruelty in violence and enslavement has intensified in certain contexts as civilizations have grown. Jesus came from a tradition in which God found that Moses´ 10 Commandments weren´t enough, so that Jesus taught the need for personal effort in spiritual practice for personal growth. The context of societal and institutional development in churches created other emphases, even though Anthony of the Desert had pioneered Christian spiritual asceticism and inspired monastic spiritual practices.
“Happiness” is certainly not Christian, although it is a kind of misdirection of Christian potential. If we neglect to observe that businesspeople are the modern merchants influencing modern culture, including Christian doctrines, then we miss the fact that in fact, the Christian objective is to transform those misguided misdirections. Jesus criticized the “deceitfulness of wealth,” not least of all.