couldn’t have said it better myself.

He sounds like Rudy Jaramillo.

Ben alludes to some of the terms related to the discussion, which is indeed a very broad question with very complex answers, and is still often discussed at the very highest levels of academic discourse. Unfortunately, those books and articles are rarely read, with people instead choosing to read the ignorant rants of Sam Harris, or a cheap response from the typical Christian bookstore. Shallow, ignorant discourse should be rejected on both sides.

I think part of the problem is that we want a simple answer to a very complex question. Furthermore, its a very emotionally charged question. Those asking it often have a personal reason for asking it, and not simply an intellectual question. All over the internet you can find very shallow answers to the question on one end, and very shallow attacks on God and descriptions of the problem at the other. At the highest levels of discussion, this topic can sometimes be debated with less bias (and greater respect for each side of the discussion), but for most of us on the base level it is an emotionally charged question.

Another problem is that its a form of protest against God, which further muddles the situation. The greatest description of the problem of evil ever penned is the protest atheism of Ivan’s “Grand Inquisitor” parable in the Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky. Ivan is saying that he will not believe in any God who allows such atrocities. This depiction of the problem by Dostoevsky, a passionate Christian nonetheless, makes the arguments of modern, fundamentalist, pop-atheists look like child’s play. It should be read (as should most of Dostoevsky) by Christians and non-Christians alike. This type of argument isn’t out of negation, like some arguments for atheism, but instead out of protest, which futher muddies the water in the discussion.

Finally, non-Greek religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc.) have attempted to “defend” God against the problem of evil using foreign Greek terms and concepts thus messing things up. For instance, instead of asking, “What has God done (if anything) to defeat the evil in our existence (which may be a necessity for all possible worlds)?” we ask the naive question, “If God is all-good, then why doesn’t the world look like ‘x’?” The ‘x’ being whatever view we, with our limited view of things, think would be the best possible world. Can you read the Hellenism of the question? Of course, that best possible world changes from time to time and from culture to culture, and is often biased by our personal sitz im leben (situation in life), including politics, the economy, etc. The “best possible world” would look very different when described by your typical Chinese farmer, Iraqi businessman and American economist. Some of the great Christian philosophers of old (Augustine, Aquinas, Basil the Great, etc.) gave very strong arguments to support God’s allowance of evil using Greek terminology, but many today simply do not ask the somewhat naive question to begin with and instead look to other means for having a broader discussion of the question.

As some of you know who have been around these boards for a long time, I hate getting into these debates, because in this medium they rarely move beyond a shallow discussion, leaving those unfamiliar very confused. Let me instead suggest some books that might help those who are truly seeking answers to the problem of evil. I’ll share three books of various levels.

1. The first is “Can God be Trusted? Faith and the Challenge of Evil” by John Stackhouse. Despite the author holding a Ph.D. from Chicago in the philosophy of religion, this is a very readable book with only an occasional philosophical term.

2. The second is “The Doors of the Sea: Where was God in the Tsunami?” by David Bentley Hart. Despite being only 100 pages long, this was written by one of America’s top philosophers and theologians, and thus can be a difficult read at times. It’s very honest, and deals with both sides of the issue with respect and clarity.

3. The final would be “The Problem of Evil” by Peter van Inwagen. This book was based on his Gifford Lectures (at St. Andrews) a few years back. As such, it’s written by scholars and philosophers of religion, by one of America’s top philosophers of religion. In other words, its really hard to read…but it is also truly worth it if you plow through it (with a dictionary sitting next to you).

This is a truly intellectually stimulating debate, and one that at the highest levels has proponents on both sides. Furthermore, instead of falling into trivial rants against each other that rarely get beyond making both sides angry, lets instead admit that there are adequate arguments for the problem of evil, and adequate responses to the problem of evil. As such, we must all seek these answers as we all agree, no matter your faith system whether Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist or whatever, that seeking truth is of the utmost importance for the future of humanity. You may not agree with the answers provided (I disagree with many) or with the descriptions of the problem of evil given (I disagree with many of those too), but you can learn to respect the discussion going on and further educate yourself toward taking part in it.

Regardless of your beliefs, those who utilize faith in a higher element to become a functioning member of society should never be ridiculed. We should all hope for and encourage others to be positive influences on society regardless of the impetus.

BTW, not indicting you here, ab03. Just adding a thought.

atheists are probably a vocal minority, but still a minority

But I wasn’t derisive of his message, I was just calling attention to the way he used the term “PC” and the way a lot of people seem to be using it these days. Sharky used to use it as an all-encompassing ambiguous pejorative, and it seems like that shit caught on.

It’s kind of hard not to get hung up on the wording when you’re discussing word usage ;)

And as for your last point, I 100% agree with ya.

I’m an athiest myself and for the most I try to respect people’s opinions, though, yah, I do make a little fun from time to time cause I just can’t help myself. But I do try not to put people down for their beliefs.

I don’t believe in god so therefore I don’t believe a supernatural entity had a single thing to do with Hambone’s recovery. However, I very much do believe that his belief in God is the reason he survived his horrible ordeal to make it back. And that’s something.