I'm having trouble with this argument, I can't come up with a counter argument.

[charisenexcelcis]

If we look closely at the idea that the goodness of God would logically require Him to prevent evil, we can see the flaw. Let us suppose that I know, as I do, that allowing my child to have freedom will cause him to make some bad choices, as a good father, do I then keep him or her in slavery? Is the freedom important enough to allow the bad that will follow? Do we not consider as evil those who act this way? If we value freedom so much, why do we resent the God who gave us that freedom?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

If we look closely at the idea that the goodness of God would logically require Him to prevent evil, we can see the flaw. Let us suppose that I know, as I do, that allowing my child to have freedom will cause him to make some bad choices, as a good father, do I then keep him or her in slavery? Is the freedom important enough to allow the bad that will follow? Do we not consider as evil those who act this way? If we value freedom so much, why do we resent the God who gave us that freedom?

Sorry, but I just don't think the free-will defense has any merits to it no matter what angle you approach it from.

An atheist would just say that God can give us the freedom to do good things while restraining us from doing bad things. After all, will we be doing bad things in heaven? I don't think so. But does this mean we will be kept in slavery? Again, I don't think so. So it seems that God can keep us from doing evil things wile giving us freedom to do good.

After all, if freedom is so valuable that it justifies allowing great amounts of evil, then why do we have civil governments that restrain persons from doing evil? Why is that if I saw someone about to commit rape that I would do everything in my power to stop them (and thus violate their free will) rather than say to myself "Well, I would stop them, but then I would be making them a slave..."

There seems to be a further problem with this line of reasoning. Consider that the man who is exercising his free will to rape a woman is at the same time violating the woman's free will. So it makes no sense to me to say that God allows this evil so as to uphold the man's free will to violate the woman's free will. Why does God respect the free will of the rapist over the woman? Why doesn't God uphold the woman's free will and violate the rapist's?

 

[imoss]

Sorry, but I just don't think the free-will defense has any merits to it no matter what angle you approach it from.

An atheist would just say that God can give us the freedom to do good things while restraining us from doing bad things. After all, will we be doing bad things in heaven? I don't think so. But does this mean we will be kept in slavery? Again, I don't think so. So it seems that God can keep us from doing evil things wile giving us freedom to do good.

After all, if freedom is so valuable that it justifies allowing great amounts of evil, then why do we have civil governments that restrain persons from doing evil? Why is that if I saw someone about to commit rape that I would do everything in my power to stop them (and thus violate their free will) rather than say to myself "Well, I would stop them, but then I would be making them a slave..."

There seems to be a further problem with this line of reasoning. Consider that the man who is exercising his free will to rape a woman is at the same time violating the woman's free will. So it makes no sense to me to say that God allows this evil so as to uphold the man's free will to violate the woman's free will. Why does God respect the free will of the rapist over the woman? Why doesn't God uphold the woman's free will and violate the rapist's?

satan........ not God.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I don't promote arguements at all.

An athiest can come up with any number of irrational scenarios and will engage you in a vicious cycle of endless and unreasonable rhetoric. The most important thing to remember is you cannot save anyone who does not have some desire to be saved. Their has to be something within them that even remotely desires to discover the truth, and if they do not, you will never truly "win" an "arguement" with them. Because they can always create question beyond reason.

I am not saying an athiest cannot be led to salvation, because I know those who have. But I am saying that trying to convince an athiest they are wrong about their beliefs will never work, if something inside of them does not desire the truth.

And as far as the arguement about God having the ability to lie. God is good. Lying is evil. God is not evil, therefore God would not lie. I find that arguement pointless and without any reason. You can debate those things which defy reason all day, but it is truly a waste of valuable time. We are called to spread the Gospel, and it is up to men to receive it. It is not our responsibility to hammer the truth into those who are not receptive of it. Because I guarantee for every soul who rejects your "arguement" their are ten souls begging for someone to show them a better way to live!

Please do not think I am rejecting the witness to everyone, but after the message is shared, wouldn't our time be better spent helping those who truly desire the truth rather than arguing with those who truly don't?

Just my opinion...

I understand what you're saying. But we never know who is truly seeking and those who are just playing games. I've been surprised on many occasions. There have been lots of instances where I thought that the person asking the question was just trying to be snarky and take cheap shots at Christianity, but I ignored it and just gave an honest answer and when I did I was surprised to hear them accept the answer I gave and thank me for it.

By way of example, this is an actual quote from someone: "Ive been with this question all my life andd you answered to me. Thank you soo much!" I was shocked when he said this because I honestly thought the guy was just trying to poke some holes in the Christian worldview.

I think that danger especially arises with this particular problem: the problem of evil (how can a good God allow evil?).

Once when I was teaching a class on this someone raised their hand and asked why we should even take such questions seriously. I read him a passage from Dostoevsky's book that I think helps to put some flesh on the issue:

"I've collected a great, great deal about Russian children, Alyosha. There was a little girl of five who was hated by her father and mother, 'most worthy and respectable people, of good education and breeding.' You see, I must repeat again, it is a peculiar characteristic of many people, this love of torturing children, and children only. To all other types of humanity these torturers behave mildly and benevolently, like cultivated and humane Europeans; but they are very fond of tormenting children, even fond of children themselves... This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty--shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to 'dear, kind God'!" (p223-224).

I don't recall where (maybe in the translator's preface), but I had read that Dostoevsky based this story off a real one that he had read of in the papers. If not, it is real enough for girls like Jaycee Lee Dugard who was abducted at the age of 11 and held prisoner as a sex-slave for 18 years. Atheists know of stories like Jaycee Lee Dugard and, just like Alyosha's brother, they genuinely want to know how the Christian worldview, with its "dear, kind God," can explain such events.

I dare say that any person who hears of such evils and isn't, if only for a moment, genuinely struck with the question "Why?" or "How?" has lost something of their humanity.

So we need to take every question seriously. Even if the atheist comes into the discussion to merely to mock and take cheap shots, we may be able to silence them with clear and cogent answers.

We cannot argue anyone into the kingdom, this is true. But can and does use argument and a rational approach to faith as a means to lead people to Christ. If anyone doesn't believe this then read Holly Ordway's new book "Not God's Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith." It's basically her autobiography of how she went from a skeptical atheist to a Christian through considering the arguments in favor of Christianity. And she was introduced to these arguments through a friend that was willing to sit down and answer her questions and debate the issues with her.

But not everyone is the same. Some people, like me, come to faith in Christ because their mom told them that Jesus was the way, and they believed them for perhaps no other reason than that it seemed like the truth. But what one person considers to be a waste of valuable time on pointless questions may be just the sort of questions that will lead another person to throne of grace.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

satan........ not God.

This only works in a Manichean type of worldview where God and Satan are equal forces, locked in battle. But Satan is subject to God, as Job describes it in the prologue, he must present himself to God and give an account of what he is doing. Nothing he does it outside of God's control (or plan, I would say). After all, it wasn't Satan who brought Job to God's attention, it was God who brought Job to Satan's attention, twice.

 

[tryingtofindhim]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Also, the omnipotence Paradox. "Can God create an object so heavy he himself cannot lift it?"

Thanks, I'm really struggling with this right now.

To answer the first question, the answer is free will. He gives us freedom. Its kind of like a parent has the power to make his 2 year old do whatever the parent wants to do because the parent is stronger than the 2 year old. A good parent would no do this because that would be cruel and also the parent gives the 2 year old a little free will.
The second answer is we humans need to quit trying to figure out God's nature. It is impossible for our human brains to understands God's nature.

 

[karuna]

So we need to take every question seriously. Even if the atheist comes into the discussion to merely to mock and take cheap shots, we may be able to silence them with clear and cogent answers.

I don't think we were arguing that you shouldn't take the question seriously, but that the question doesn't necessarily constrain the Christian to a consideration of that question alone. When a man comes in to an ER and asks why the fairies are making his chest hurt, you don't ignore him but you also don't spend time on the question as phrased. You recognize that the question is the best way he can communicate his true issue and give him what he needs, not necessarily what he asks for. You take the question seriously, but you don't take it as law.

This brings me to something ShelleBelle said:

I guess what I don't understand is why a Christian would allow themselves to get sucked into a conversation about the "why's" of God actions with someone who doesn't even believe in the existance of that God.

I think this is because we don't know how to stop and consider. We respond to what's in front of us in the best way we know how.

It's as if the Christian is suddenly teleported into a stadium with a thousand screaming fans, one foot away from the goal line with ball in hand. Your average person will step across and spike the ball before asking someone how he got there. The Christian sees an easy win and believes that, if he can answer the question as phrased, that he will have scored a point with the person. Possibly even save a soul.

There's no reason not to charge ahead!

Of course, I believe there is. People are very rarely aware of their own motivations or needs and are even less capable of communicating them. It may be a heart attack. It could be indigestion. In any case, the doctor or Christian can't take the question as a constraint - any response based on the question, and not on the situation, will be dangerous.

 

[ShelleBelle76]

Consider that the man who is exercising his free will to rape a woman is at the same time violating the woman's free will. So it makes no sense to me to say that God allows this evil so as to uphold the man's free will to violate the woman's free will. Why does God respect the free will of the rapist over the woman? Why doesn't God uphold the woman's free will and violate the rapist's?

One's again, you are placing the responsibility for man's actions on God for allowing or disallowing mankinds actions. I find that illogical.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I don't think we were arguing that you shouldn't take the question seriously, but that the question doesn't necessarily constrain the Christian to a consideration of that question alone. When a man comes in to an ER and asks why the fairies are making his chest hurt, you don't ignore him but you also don't spend time on the question as phrased. You recognize that the question is the best way he can communicate his true issue and give him what he needs, not necessarily what he asks for. You take the question seriously, but you don't take it as law.

Well if the atheist actually had a knife stuck in his back and five minutes to live then I would be more inclined to agree. But I think I would also simply weave the gospel into my answer of his question (not of fairies, of course, but of the problem of evil). I think this is fairly simple to do, in fact the problem of evil can be a great set up for the gospel message.

Your analogy appears to be a bit of a set-up to me because I think we all agree that fairies making your chest hurt is ridiculous. But the problem of evil isn't ridiculous. And atheists don't think that a lot of (or any of) their questions are ridiculous. And while they have a fatal problem (sin) the vast, vast majority of the atheists that we meet with such questions will most likely have more than five minutes to live, so we don't need to ignore all their questions as though they might drop dead before we finish our sentence (and if anyone really thinks we should act that way then they should talk really really fast).

Consider if a Scientologist came knocking on your door. They said "Hi, we just learned that Lord Xeno is about to return to earth in five minutes and you need to sign a contract with us fast before he gets here or he's going to punish you." What would you say? I'm sure you would either roll your eyes and slam the door shut in his face or else you would have some questions, like "are you crazy?" or "how do you know?"

What if the Scientologist responded to your questions with "Look, I've only got five minutes, you just need to sign the contract or Xeno is going to punish you."

What would you do then? At some point, if the Scientologist didn't try to provide some answer to your questions, you would just ignore them. If we think that ignoring someone who won't interact with where you are coming from is reasonable, then perhaps we can understand why an atheist will not want to hear our message if we act like the urgent Scientologist.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

One's again, you are placing the responsibility for man's actions on God for allowing or disallowing mankinds actions. I find that illogical.

I tried to explain earlier, we as humans seem to think that we have a responsibility to look out for each other's welfare and prevent evil when it is within our power to do so.

So I'm not exactly blaming God for the evil act, just for the apparent negligence (but I'm not actually blaming him for anything, just playing devil's advocate).

 

[karuna]

Your analogy appears to be a bit of a set-up to me because I think we all agree that fairies making your chest hurt is ridiculous.

If you're stuck on the details, consider the common case in which patients diagnose themselves with actual illnesses they don't have and insist on being treated for them, making the free exercise of the doctor's training more difficult. For instance, someone might blame their gastrointestinal symptoms on celiac when in fact they have lactose intolerance.

Is celiac a real problem? Yes. Should the doctor treat the patient for celiac? No. Should the doctor investigate celiac and treat it if it fits? Yes.

And while they have a fatal problem (sin) the vast, vast majority of the atheists that we meet with such questions will most likely have more than five minutes to live, so we don't need to ignore all their questions as though they might drop dead before we finish our sentence (and if anyone really thinks we should act that way then they should talk really really fast).

Again, I'm not suggesting we ignore the question. I'm suggesting that before we treat the question as phrased as a constraint and answer it, we investigate whether the question as phrased is the most pressing question.

What would you do then? At some point, if the Scientologist didn't try to provide some answer to your questions, you would just ignore them. If we think that ignoring someone who won't interact with where you are coming from is reasonable, then perhaps we can understand why an atheist will not want to hear our message if we act like the urgent Scientologist.

Interestingly, I haven't suggested ignoring the question. I'm suggesting that we interface with the person more deeply, try to understand their backgrounds, look into the emotional underpinnings of the question, etc.

Again, most people cannot communicate their real needs or motivations, especially when they're using canned philosophical arguments. To find out where they're coming from, to address them on a level we know will be meaningful, we can't simply give the right answer to the question they've just asked.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

If you're stuck on the details, consider the common case in which patients diagnose themselves with actual illnesses they don't have and insist on being treated for them, making the free exercise of the doctor's training more difficult. For instance, someone might blame their gastrointestinal symptoms on celiac when in fact they have lactose intolerance.

Is celiac a real problem? Yes. Should the doctor treat the patient for celiac? No. Should the doctor investigate celiac and treat it if it fits? Yes.

But the intellectual tension that many unbelievers feel towards Christianity isn't imaginary.

Again, I'm not suggesting we ignore the question. I'm suggesting that before we treat the question as phrased as a constraint and answer it, we investigate whether the question as phrased is the most pressing question.

I'm really not sure what that means to you. Let's say Alyosha's brother posed the same story to you that he did to Alyosha. What would be your response?

Interestingly, I haven't suggested ignoring the question. I'm suggesting that we interface with the person more deeply, try to understand their backgrounds, look into the emotional underpinnings of the question, etc.

Again, this sounds nice in theory. Who doesn't want to "interface deeply" and "understand their backgrounds" or see the foundation to a question, but I have no idea what this has to do with the person's legitimate question or what you think this would look like.

Again, most people cannot communicate their real needs or motivations, especially when they're using canned philosophical arguments. To find out where they're coming from, to address them on a level we know will be meaningful, we can't simply give the right answer to the question they've just asked.

No idea what this means. If you can't trust that what the person says is their legitimate concern, how do you plan on getting to their "emotional underpinnings"? I'm sure they won't appreciate your psychologizing them.

At the same time, I'm not sure I would disagree with you, but you seem to be qualifying yourself so much that I can't make heads or tails of what your actual concerns are or what this would look like in practice.

 

[karuna]

But the intellectual tension that many unbelievers feel towards Christianity isn't imaginary.

Neither is the suffering of the person who suspects he has celiac but has lactose intolerance. Even assuming the patient is correct and does have celiac, the doctor would do well to confirm it before treating it. The person addressing theodicy would do well to confirm that the conversation will be the most worthwhile. He should not take it as a given.

I'm really not sure what that means to you. Let's say Alyosha's brother posed the same story to you that he did to Alyosha. What would be your response?

I would agree that, from my perspective, the world is not worth it.

Again, this sounds nice in theory. Who doesn't want to "interface deeply" and "understand their backgrounds" or see the foundation to a question, but I have no idea what this has to do with the person's legitimate question or what you think this would look like.

If you can't trust that what the person says is their legitimate concern, how do you plan on getting to their "emotional underpinnings"? I'm sure they won't appreciate your psychologizing them.

My goal is not to make them appreciate me. My goal is to understand their needs and respond to them in the best way I can. Understanding the intent and history behind the question, which is often borrowed wholesale from other thinkers, can assist.

This isn't impossible. Pain doctors often deal with drug seekers, who hide their real addiction and suffering behind feigned illnesses, but by digging just a little deeper than the initial complaint, they're often able to figure this out. A rape victim can choose to phrase her suffering in anonymous theological terms because to address the rape directly is too embarrassing, but if you give her a safe space in which to discuss the reason behind the question, you may do her more good.

I used to do social work with drug addicts. Interestingly, a sizable portion of the people who came in to see me didn't have an addiction but feigned one just long enough to have someone to talk to. Regularly I found myself across from a homeless person, lonely housewife, or student who couldn't handle his course load. All of them lied on their intake forms. None of them needed the help they first requested.

Is there always an underlying issue? No. Should we assume that what a person asks for will serve them best? No.

At the same time, I'm not sure I would disagree with you, but you seem to be qualifying yourself so much that I can't make heads or tails of what your actual concerns are or what this would look like in practice.

My concern is fairly simple - the words a person leads with are only one indicator of what's going on and what they need.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Sorry, but I just don't think the free-will defense has any merits to it no matter what angle you approach it from.

An atheist would just say that God can give us the freedom to do good things while restraining us from doing bad things. After all, will we be doing bad things in heaven? I don't think so. But does this mean we will be kept in slavery? Again, I don't think so. So it seems that God can keep us from doing evil things wile giving us freedom to do good.

After all, if freedom is so valuable that it justifies allowing great amounts of evil, then why do we have civil governments that restrain persons from doing evil? Why is that if I saw someone about to commit rape that I would do everything in my power to stop them (and thus violate their free will) rather than say to myself "Well, I would stop them, but then I would be making them a slave..."

There seems to be a further problem with this line of reasoning. Consider that the man who is exercising his free will to rape a woman is at the same time violating the woman's free will. So it makes no sense to me to say that God allows this evil so as to uphold the man's free will to violate the woman's free will. Why does God respect the free will of the rapist over the woman? Why doesn't God uphold the woman's free will and violate the rapist's?

Absolutely. God created the world knowing that we would break it and then engage in all sorts of evil. But there is neither faith nor love, much less salvation without free will. god said to Moses, "Am I not the one who make seeing eyes blind and hearing ears deaf." God placed in human society the four estates of society: family, government, economy, and religion. On each He placed responsibility and restraint. These were to be His post-fall agents for righteousness. When they fail to live up to their responsibilities, or exceed their boundaries, there is nothing to mitigate the evil of man.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Tell me Credo, did you ever take a class in Interpersonal Relationships, because you are really bad at it.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Neither is the suffering of the person who suspects he has celiac but has lactose intolerance. Even assuming the patient is correct and does have celiac, the doctor would do well to confirm it before treating it. The person addressing theodicy would do well to confirm that the conversation will be the most worthwhile. He should not take it as a given.

So how exactly does this analogy align with apologetics? For example, if an atheist poses the problem of evil, do you not take it as a given that he really thinks the problem of evil is a problem? You're attempting to build this whole thing upon an analogy, and I'm not sure exactly how you think it is analogous. Why not get away from the analogy and just give some concrete explanations. Analogies are fine as an aid to explaining a concept, but trying to build the concept from scratch by way of analogy is useless.

I'm wondering why, if an atheist asked a question, we would be so skeptical as to whether the question was legitimate and the atheist sincerely believed it to be a dilemma.

I would agree that, from my perspective, the world is not worth it.

Not sure what this means. Could you expound?

My goal is not to make them appreciate me.

I didn't say it was. I said they wouldn't appreciate psychologizing their motives. This means that if they think you're just going to impose your categories onto them, they probably aren't going to stick around long enough for you to "understand their needs and respond to them in the best way [you] can."

My goal is to understand their needs and respond to them in the best way I can. Understanding the intent and history behind the question, which is often borrowed wholesale from other thinkers, can assist.

Great, but again, what does this actually look like. Let's get to concrete examples. A few months ago someone asked me how I explained the fact that the creation story in Genesis 1 contradicts the creation story in Genesis 2.

So let's pretend you've been asked the same question. Are you going to give them a long form to fill out with a psychological evaluation (after all, that's one way to "understand their needs" etc.) What would you say to the person? How would this theory you've laid out, from analogy, actually look?

This isn't impossible. Pain doctors often deal with drug seekers, who hide their real addiction and suffering behind feigned illnesses, but by digging just a little deeper than the initial complaint, they're often able to figure this out. A rape victim can choose to phrase her suffering in anonymous theological terms because to address the rape directly is too embarrassing, but if you give her a safe space in which to discuss the reason behind the question, you may do her more good.

That's great. But we aren't pain doctors and we aren't dealing with drug seekers. So let's get away from the analogy which at this point isn't helping because your entire theory is looking like one big analogy from start to finish.

I'm pretty sure a rape victim will want to know why God allowed the rape to happen. This is the same thing the non-rape victim atheist will want to know in the problem of evil as formulated in the original post. They both want to know the same thing, but one has first-hand experience of the evil.

For some reason, you seem to assume that there must be a deeper reason behind the question rather than "Why did God allow this to happen?" By making that assumption you may just end up offending the rape victim because you aren't taking their words seriously.

I used to do social work with drug addicts. Interestingly, a sizable portion of the people who came in to see me didn't have an addiction but feigned one just long enough to have someone to talk to. Regularly I found myself across from a homeless person, lonely housewife, or student who couldn't handle his course load. All of them lied on their intake forms. None of them needed the help they first requested.

Great, more analogy. But why should I assume this is true in apologetic encounters?

Is there always an underlying issue? No. Should we assume that what a person asks for will serve them best? No.

I agree with the first part. The second part doesn't make sense to me. If someone says "I'm struggling with the problem of evil" why should I play Dr. Phil and try to get to the REAL problem they are having? Why wouldn't I take them seriously? That seems like the respectful thing to do.

My concern is fairly simple - the words a person leads with are only one indicator of what's going on and what they need.

Well this doesn't seem like a very interesting claim. Obviously if an atheist brings up the problem of evil then the problem of evil isn't his *only* problem. Sin is his problem, sin is everyone's problem, but wound up in that is the problem of evil and this is what he has come to you with. And the problem that the person comes to you with can be the first door you have to walk through before you get to play Dr. Phil with the rest.

 

[karuna]

So how exactly does this analogy align with apologetics? For example, if an atheist poses the problem of evil, do you not take it as a given that he really thinks the problem of evil is a problem?

Even if I did, to address it may not be the best use of our time.

I'm wondering why, if an atheist asked a question, we would be so skeptical as to whether the question was legitimate and the atheist sincerely believed it to be a dilemma.

Because it's often the case that atheists borrow the language of the dilemma without any real concern for resolving it. It is often not a question, but a statement: I do not believe that your God exists for this reason. Also, again, because people are often very bad at articulating their real needs, even if they have no intention to hide them - I've stated this several times now.

Not sure what this means. Could you expound?

No.

I didn't say it was. I said they wouldn't appreciate psychologizing their motives. This means that if they think you're just going to impose your categories onto them, they probably aren't going to stick around long enough for you to "understand their needs and respond to them in the best way [you] can."

In practice, it seems to work, both in religious and practical matters.

Great, but again, what does this actually look like. Let's get to concrete examples. A few months ago someone asked me how I explained the fact that the creation story in Genesis 1 contradicts the creation story in Genesis 2. So let's pretend you've been asked the same question. Are you going to give them a long form to fill out with a psychological evaluation (after all, that's one way to "understand their needs" etc.) What would you say to the person? How would this theory you've laid out, from analogy, actually look?

For one, I'd like to know their religious background, what their understanding of the Genesis story is, if they've studied textual criticism, etc. I'd ask them what the purpose of the question is and what they planned on doing with the answer.

For some reason, you seem to assume that there must be a deeper reason behind the question rather than "Why did God allow this to happen?" By making that assumption you may just end up offending the rape victim because you aren't taking their words seriously.

I sense that you're no longer reading what I'm writing. I said: "Is there always an underlying issue? No." However, and this is my point once again, we would do well to find out if there is.

Great, more analogy. But why should I assume this is true in apologetic encounters?

You shouldn't assume. You should try to figure out if it is the case.

I agree with the first part. The second part doesn't make sense to me. If someone says "I'm struggling with the problem of evil" why should I play Dr. Phil and try to get to the REAL problem they are having? Why wouldn't I take them seriously? That seems like the respectful thing to do.

You are taking them seriously. You just don't assume they're telling you the whole truth in their first attempt to articulate it to you.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Absolutely. God created the world knowing that we would break it and then engage in all sorts of evil. But there is neither faith nor love, much less salvation without free will. god said to Moses, "Am I not the one who make seeing eyes blind and hearing ears deaf." God placed in human society the four estates of society: family, government, economy, and religion. On each He placed responsibility and restraint. These were to be His post-fall agents for righteousness. When they fail to live up to their responsibilities, or exceed their boundaries, there is nothing to mitigate the evil of man.

I don't necessarily agree with anything here. Although, as I already made clear, I wouldn't make everything hang on free will. Free will ends up looking like the bad deus ex machina that Christians use to solve all problems, and a lot of the atheists I've talked to are able to see right through it.

As Alyosha's brother basically said in The Karamazov quote, is free will worth such a price? It's not obvious to many persons that it is worth such a price. And it's not obvious, as I pointed out, that we need to be free to commit evil acts in order to commit good acts.

When they fail to live up to their responsibilities, or exceed their boundaries, there is nothing to mitigate the evil of man

The problem is that it would seem God has the responsibility to mitigate the evil of men. After all, I, as an individual, apparently would have a moral obligation (as a loving person) to stop a rape from occurring if I have the power to do so. I'm not a government, a religion, a family, or an economy, yet I think most persons would agree that I have this responsibility. So why not God?

Instead of trying to find ways to maintain the free-will defense, it should just be dropped. I don't think we should be shy about dropping it because we don't really need it to get around the problem. Yes, it is true that men are responsible for their actions. Yes it is true that men sin freely (without coercion, according to their desires), but I also happen to think that these facts don't, in themselves, help solve the dilemma raised by the problem of evil.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Even if I did, to address it may not be the best use of our time.

Well it's certainly possible that it's not the best use of your time. It's also certainly possible that it is the best use of your time.

Because it's often the case that atheists borrow the language of the dilemma without any real concern for resolving it.

How would you know that? If an atheist says he is concerned for resolving it, how do you know he is lying?

It is often not a question, but a statement: I do not believe that your God exists for this reason.

Even if this is true, answering the question will remove that reason he has for not believing in God's existence. So it would still appear to be best to answer the question.

Also, again, because people are often very bad at articulating their real needs, even if they have no intention to hide them - I've stated this several times now.

This still doesn't seem like useful information. For example, I could take this fact (the fact that persons are bad at articulating their real needs) and from that try to psychologize your posts here. I could say to myself "I know Karuna SAYS that she is concerned about such and such, but maybe she has some hidden problem she is trying to communicate etc. etc."

We could do the same thing with virtually everything a person says. That's why I'm looking for concrete, or practical, applications.

In practice, it seems to work, both in religious and practical matters.

Hasn't worked in my experience.

For one, I'd like to know their religious background, what their understanding of the Genesis story is, if they've studied textual criticism, etc. I'd ask them what the purpose of the question is and what they planned on doing with the answer.

Those seem like good questions. I've asked them myself before, but I usually find that I don't need to, as they are things that naturally come up when we discuss the initial problem raised.

I sense that you're no longer reading what I'm writing. I said: "Is there always an underlying issue? No." However, and this is my point once again, we would do well to find out if there is.

That's because you wrote that after the statement you wrote which I was responding to.

You shouldn't assume. You should try to figure out if it is the case.

Thats what I'm doing by asking you these questions.

You are taking them seriously. You just don't assume they're telling you the whole truth in their first attempt to articulate it to you.

If someone says "I'm having a struggling with the problem of evil" and your first thought is "I wonder what their real problem is?" then I don't see how that is taking them seriously. That seems like a textbook case of not taking them seriously.

Now, maybe that is a caricature of your position. Maybe your first thought wouldn't be "I wonder what their real problem is?" At this point, it seems like you've qualified yourself to the point that all you're saying is "They may have other issues." If that's all your claiming, then I don't know of anyone who would disagree. It looks obvious to me.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

I don't necessarily agree with anything here. Although, as I already made clear, I wouldn't make everything hang on free will. Free will ends up looking like the bad deus ex machina that Christians use to solve all problems, and a lot of the atheists I've talked to are able to see right through it.

As Alyosha's brother basically said in The Karamazov quote, is free will worth such a price? It's not obvious to many persons that it is worth such a price. And it's not obvious, as I pointed out, that we need to be free to commit evil acts in order to commit good acts.



The problem is that it would seem God has the responsibility to mitigate the evil of men. After all, I, as an individual, apparently would have a moral obligation (as a loving person) to stop a rape from occurring if I have the power to do so. I'm not a government, a religion, a family, or an economy, yet I think most persons would agree that I have this responsibility. So why not God?

Instead of trying to find ways to maintain the free-will defense, it should just be dropped. I don't think we should be shy about dropping it because we don't really need it to get around the problem. Yes, it is true that men are responsible for their actions. Yes it is true that men sin freely (without coercion, according to their desires), but I also happen to think that these facts don't, in themselves, help solve the dilemma raised by the problem of evil.

Of course, if you disagree with it, I must drop it.
As for God's responsibility to mitigate the evil of man, that is the whole basis of the cross. Do you think that His grace began and ended at the cross? It is the responsibility of love. All that He teaches us about our responsibility and ministry are reflections of His nature. Do you think that He desires anarchy in human society? Do you believe what the Bible says about the purposes and functions of those estates?
Regarding the question of what to say to the atheist about the problem of evil--the most important thing is the attitude of the witnesser. God opens the door for witnessing and He will guide your words. Just do your best to be ready and listen to Him and you will do fine.