I was driving down the highway, listening to an audiobook. The main character was an atheist, struggling with the problem of evil—the age-old question of how a good God can allow so much evil to go unchecked. I was totally immersed in the story when a thought struck me so profoundly, I paused the book, grabbed my phone, and called a friend of mine who loves diving into philosophical debates.
Many atheists argue they can't believe in God because there's too much evil in the world. But let’s flip that perspective for a moment. If atheists are right and life ends at death, the most heinous individuals face no ultimate consequences.
Take Hitler, for example. He orchestrated the Holocaust, causing immense suffering and loss. In the end, he took his own life, avoiding earthly justice. If there's no God and no afterlife, then Hitler faced no consequences. He simply ceased to exist. No final judgment, no ultimate justice—just nothing.
Imagine how unsettling that is. In a world with God, evil may exist temporarily, but there's the promise of ultimate justice. Every wrong will be righted; every evil act accounted for. There's a grand design where everything balances out in the end.
In contrast, an atheist universe offers no such promise. Evil deeds go unpunished, and there's no final reckoning. The thought of a world where justice is never served, where the worst actions are never addressed, is deeply disturbing.
So, which universe is truly more horrifying?
After getting off the phone with my friend, I continued my drive, and I couldn’t shake this idea: The problem of evil is really no more troubling than a universe that leaves evil unchecked. Then it dawned on me: The problem of evil isn’t really the problem.
The problem of evil isn’t a cause for unbelief. It’s a criticism of a God that exists. It’s a criticism against a God that isn’t running the world the way they think it ought to be run. The only way the problem of evil argument has any sway is if there is a God. Otherwise, it’s just nonsense.
Saying God doesn’t exist because his actions are evil is like saying Hitler didn’t exist because he was a bad guy. It’s nonsense. So, why do so many atheists claim this is their reason for not believing in God?
There's an interesting omission in the problem of evil argument. We never hear atheists complain about God being too lenient with their own mistakes. It's always about the evil actions of others that they want to see judged.
This selective focus is intriguing. It shows that the goal is not a universal judgment for wrongs; it’s something else entirely. A refusal to acknowledge personal flaws while demanding justice for others seems familiar… Where have I seen that? Oh yeah!
At its root, It’s a standard unfair expectation complaint (UEC for short). What’s a UEC? It’s a complaint given to point out that I’m being held to a higher standard than someone else, and it’s not fair. I have four kids, so let me give you a real-world example.
“Son, it’s time to clean your room,” Dad says.
“But Sally’s room is a mess, and you’re not making her clean. Why do I have to clean my room? It’s not fair!” he replies.
This is a classic UEC. It implies that the father is unfair for leaving someone else unpunished while he is expected to fulfill expectations. Now, let’s put this into moral territory.
“Don’t have sex outside of marriage,” God says.
“But Hitler got to do whatever he wanted, and you didn’t stop him. Why do I have to live up to these strict rules? It isn’t fair!” the sinner says.
An Unfair Expectation Complaint has one and only one goal. The only reason anyone ever gives a UEC is to make the case that they should not have to live up to those expectations. It’s a request to remove the expectation. It’s an argument for not having to clean my room. It’s presented as evidence that I should be allowed to sleep with whoever I want.
This is a clever way of escaping the guilt placed on a person for their behavior. Their thinking might go something like this:
Even though the problem of evil is wrapped in sophisticated jargon that might make a philosopher’s head swim, we have to look at the practical outcome. The Atheist gets to do what he wants while ostensibly escaping the guilt of expectation while doing so.
Have you ever known the kid who claims that the game is unfair if he loses? He points to the rules as flawed if he doesn’t get the goal. That is essentially what the problem of evil argument is doing. If the rules are flawed, then I get to believe I’m righteous. The problem of the evil argument claims self-righteousness. It claims that the rules are unjust and no one can live up
You don't even seem to understand what the problem of evil even is.
What you seem to think is: "Why do I sometimes suffer consequences for my actions while others don't?"
What it actually is: "How can a god that is all loving, all knowing, and all powerful deliberately create a world so utterly filled with suffering?"
Either a god wanted AIDS, harlequin babies, intestinal parasites, down syndrome, quadriplegics, dental abscesses, child abuse, sex trafficking, torture, white phosphorous strikes, and the holocaust, or he was powerless to stop them from happening. Some of these things are caused by human nature, others just by nature itself.
It's not a matter of wanting to see people *punished* for bad things. It's about why these things are even a part of the universe at all. A truly omnipotent god could have made all his creations as perfect as he was, he could create a world without any suffering at all.
He either couldn't or didn't. I have never once heard an explanation for this that didn't either tacitly start to claim god was weak or start to walk back his benevolence.