The Problem of Evil for Atheists

The Problem of Evil is the issue that first turned me away from Christianity (I was never actually a Christian, but was raised in a Christian family). Some Christians try to turn it around, and suggest this is also a problem for atheism. One such is this at BeliefNet.

Atheism really has nothing to say on some of the issues here, such as human worth, but humanism does, so some of this is from an atheist-humanist position (humanism was originally Christian, so not inherently atheist).

Human Worth

The first argument is that we believe people have worth:

To begin with, there is the shattering offense of evil. It seems to me that the breathtaking revulsion we experience when seeing Jeff Bauman being wheeled through the streets of Boston, his legs blown to ribbons by the unspeakable actions of terrorists, signals something about the perceived worth of human beings. We recognize at that moment that this is an objectively evil act, one that has marred a valued and loved creature of God. In Judeo-Christian theology we capture this sense of the worth of human beings with the declaration that we have been made in the image of God. Consequently the victimization and violation of a human being in a terrorist attack constitutes an offense against God and the universe he made.

We all agree humans have worth. The issue appears to be: why? Humanists believe people have intrinsic worth; they have worth just because they are people. We do not need to be loved by God to have value; we have it anyway.

It is worth remembering the atrocities in the Bible; what does bashing babies on rocks tell us about a person's worth? Is that not the victimization and violation of a human being as bad as that of a terrorist act (acknowledging that terrorist acts usually have multiple victims). I could go on, but pointing out God's failings is like shooting fish in a barrel.

The article goes on:

But if we are merely “an odd little phenomenon that has no meaning”, a “microspeck” from nothing and headed back to nothing, then murder and mayhem don’t present an offense against the order of the universe or a violation of intrinsic worth. Instead, the suffering of those in the Boston bombing is merely one more momentary, inconsequential occurrence in an overwhelming, violent universe.

Why should I think murder and mayhem are "an offense against the order of the universe"? I see no reason to suppose that is the case, and the author makes no attempt to support it. It is just his opinion, based on his religious beliefs.

With regards to the "violation of intrinsic worth", I though he just said we have worth because we are valued and loved by God? That is not intrinsic, that is extrinsic; it comes from something external to us. Christianity tells us what we are worth intrinsically when it says we all sinners who deserve to go to Hell.

I believe - contrary to Christianity - that we do have intrinsic worth. In humanism, murder and mayhem really are a violation of intrinsic worth.

Hope

The second argument:

And that brings me to the second point, that of hope. If Woody Allen is right, then where is the hope? Where is the hope for the victims of the Boston bombing? For the workers in the Bangladesh building collapse? For the parents and children of Newtown? Where is the hope for any of us that we will one day be delivered from the evils we experience and witness every day?

There are two very different things he that the author has chosen to conflate.

The first is the hope of things in this life. With regards to the workers in the Bangladesh building collapse, they were hoping to find survivors still alive in the rubble. Is he suggesting atheists would give up hope of finding survives and not bother to dig? How does that make any sense?

I do not think it does. And I suspect he knows that, which is why he conflates it with the second type of hope.

Hope in the afterlife. He says: "Where is the hope for any of us that we will one day be delivered from the evils we experience and witness every day?" I take that to mean, where is the hope that we will have peace in heaven.

And that comes down to whether you think false hope and delusion is a good thing. I think not. I think adults should be treated as adults; they should be told the truth.

It follows from that that hope in the afterlife is only a good thing if the afterlife is real. If it is not, it is a false hole, a delusion.

Worse than that, hope in the afterlife helps us understand why people turn to religion; not because it is true, but because it offers a false hope.

The Big Picture

Let us take a step back at this point. Suppose the author is right, and atheism does not give people worth or hope, how is that a problem for atheism?

We can sum up the Problem for Christianity thus:

Allowing something bad to happen needlessly when you could readily prevent it is morally bad
Nevertheless bad things - such as disease, rape, torture - happen
A god who allows bad things to happen is not perfectly good
Therefore the God posited by Christianity does not exist

What exactly is the Problem for atheism?

People hope
Therefore their must be a god to fulfil that hope

Anyone see a flaw in that argument?