Creation and the problem of evil

The amount and nature of evil in the world is commonly presented as an argument against God's existence. I'd like to throw the ball back into the materialist court; as this problem is one that everyone has to account for and explain evil, not just the theist or the Christian. The materialist has no answer to the problem of evil because for him evil can't exist. The best he can say is that it's a delusion, based on some evolutionary programs that happened to get 'wired' into place some time in the distant past. If people saw things 'rationally' they'd see that evil doesn't exist. (This is what our friend Richard Dawkins has claimed.)

Quotes and comments;

David Ramsay Steele has a book defending atheism... but why does he bother? According to materialism, man is just matter in motion. Why then is a bit of matter defending atheism, and materialism? Why would a bit of matter care? How can a bit of matter care? The trouble with people like Gordon is that they don't think deeply enough about the issue facing them. Their own reactions belie their worldviews, and are evidence these views aren't true. He claims that the evil in the world disproves God, but how can mere matter be concerned about evil? (The materialist must believe that somehow this concern has been hiding within matter for billions of years, and recently 'emerged' onto the cosmic stage. But how could such a thing happen?)

It's this need to explain (justify, etc.) atheism that I want to look at, as I see it as evidence both for God, and for a created world. If man were just matter in motion (granted for the sake of argument this was possible) where would a need to defend atheism come from?

If all were merely matter in motion there would be no 'problem' of evil. Evil is a theistic concept in general, and one that only makes sense within a biblical worldview. The materialist talks about the problem of evil, but if there isn't any solution - which under materialism there isn't - why even talk about it? A problem suggests an answer; at least suggests the possibility of an answer. From the materialist perspective things just are; opinions about things aren't factual they're just feelings.

The atheist just takes himself for granted (as a starting point that doesn't need to be explained). But that's just the issue at hand. I see no way the materialist can give a believable account of his own existence, personality, capacities, ideas, etc. But he just shrugs this off as no problem. (It's really all he can do.) I see no way you make this cosmic jump from rocks to historians of Marxism. It simply can't be done on the basis of materialism. To merely say 'well, it may seem hard to comprehend... but we're here, and therefore materialism is true,' is no answer at all in my opinion. This simply begs the question. Nothing distinctly human can be explained in terms of materialism.

A. There have been many books written recently to capitalize the 'new atheism' craze. Here's the description of 'Atheism Explained' - by David Ramsay Steele;
'Atheism Explained explores the claims made both for and against the existence of God. On the pro side: that the wonders of the world can only be explained by an intelligent creator; that the universe had to start somewhere; telepathy, out-of-body experiences, and other paranormal phenomena demonstrate the existence of a spirit world; and that those who experience God directly provide evidence as real as any physical finding. After disputing these arguments through calm, careful criticism, author David Ramsay Steele presents the reasons why God cannot exist: monstrous, appalling evils; the impossibility of omniscience; and the senseless concept that God is a thinking mind without a brain. He also explores controversial topics such as Intelligent Design, the power of prayer, religion without God, and whether a belief in God makes people happier and healthier...' [1.]

Almost nothing Steele deals with makes any sense in terms of his own materialism. He has to 'borrow' (steal) ideas and concepts from the Christian worldview to make his claims. e.g. how can a piece of matter know if God exists? How can a materialist talk about evil since it's not physical and therefore not real? How does matter know what is possible or impossible? how can matter know whether mind exists? How can the materialist have a concept of truth or of falsehood? How can one explain truth in terms of materialism? How can one explain arguments in terms of materialism? What can happiness mean in terms of materialism? One could go on and on. But popular apologists for atheism just ignore all this. They clearly don't want to deal with the serious issues.

One of the biggest problems the materialist has is to explain why the Christian and the atheist have different views on things. He has to explain how physical law has been violated (assuming physical law produces uniform results) in this regard. He has to give a materialist account of explanation; of why matter would be interested in explanation, and what it could mean in terms of matter in motion. Over and over we see that the materialist can't deal with the complexities of human experience. The 'man' he talks about is some phantasm, more like a stone than a human being.

Summary;
When we examine the human situation we see that we're confronted by a great mystery. The atheist would rather deny this this mystery than face it. It clearly makes him uncomfortable, and he'd rather pretend that there's no problem, that there's nothing that needs explaining than try to account for his existential predicament. Surely it's obvious that our life situation here is many times more complex than the one he portrays.

Notes;
1. 'Atheism explained' - David Ramsay Steele [Product Description from Amazon]
'Atheism Explained explores the claims made both for and against the existence of God. On the pro side: that the wonders of the world can only be explained by an intelligent creator; that the universe had to start somewhere; telepathy, out-of-body experiences, and other paranormal phenomena demonstrate the existence of a spirit world; and that those who experience God directly provide evidence as real as any physical finding. After disputing these arguments through calm, careful criticism, author David Ramsay Steele presents the reasons why God cannot exist: monstrous, appalling evils; the impossibility of omniscience; and the senseless concept that God is a thinking mind without a brain. He also explores controversial topics such as Intelligent Design, the power of prayer, religion without God, and whether a belief in God makes people happier and healthier...'

I agree with Gordon that the argument for God based on better health etc. is a bad one.
- Arguments against theism and criticisms against Christians and Christianity don't make materialism (atheism) true.
- What we see here is Rationalism; where nothing can exist or be true if the rationalist can't make sense of it. i.e. reality must equal a man's ability to comprehend it; reality has to be limited by a man's ability to understand.