Superficial and Predictable Christian Apologetics: A Response to Steadfast Reflections

I found a blog by the name of Steadfast Reflections (henceforth Mr Steadfast) which attempts to address the problem of evil. It is particularly egregious. I respond to some of it. 

https://steadfastreflections.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/an-alternative-fry-up/

My stuff is in bold. Mr Steadfast's is in italics. 

“You may well have seen it. Lots of people are sharing it around the web. Some are hailing it as a tour de force of irrefutable statements against the worship of God.

Yes, I’m talking about that video of Stephen Fry giving voice to his objection to God: people suffer. Specifically, children suffer. Therefore, he concludes, God is a monster, an evil and stupid being of such mean-minded and selfish caprice that he deserves no respect.

It’s a rather vehement and crude way of restating a problem that people have been talking about for centuries, with much thought, many tears, and considerable energy.”

This is an interesting move. “Much thought, many tears, and considerable energy”. It’s a way of sucking God’s critics into a theological black hole. Anyone who thinks the problem of evil is decisive simply hasn't wrestled with the problem enough.

“So, I've decided to offer my own few thoughts on a couple of problems with Stephen Fry’s invective against the divine, and serve a fry-up of my own; like him, I don’t offer any new insights, nor do I claim to put forward a comprehensive and thorough answer. But for Christians who are unsettled, or others who think he’s got a point, I want to prompt some further reflection about just how persuasive this video is, once you get past the rhetoric.”

And I hope to persuade any viewers that the problem of evil does have a very serious point. So the blog appears to have two main arguments. The first is the old “you can’t criticize my framework from yours” fallacy, and the second is sceptical theism. So let’s listen.

“From whence the complaint?

First, given what Stephen Fry believes about life, the universe, and everything, why does he even have a problem? If all that is, is the result of blind chance, an impersonal materialistic universe that just ‘happened’, then what’s the problem of suffering children? What is suffering? Why care? The weak die, the strong survive, the species carries on – the categories of ‘wrong’, or ‘injustice’, or ‘evil’ have no place.”

Recall the earlier complaint about how Stephen Fry was too hasty in his philosophy about the problem of evil? Now, we’re getting into the branch of philosophy known as meta-ethics. And Mr Steadfast has butchered it. It is not even at the level of bad philosophy.

1)      First of all, even if Mr Steadfast was correct about the implications of atheistic or naturalistic belief, it would still be fallacious to try to block the problem of evil in this way. The critic can show contradictions between Christian beliefs without buying into them himself. So even if the categories of wrong, injustice and evil have no basis on atheism, this is not a defence of Christianity. It is a silly ad hominem.

2)      Steadfast fails to realize that when he talks about the nature of “good” and “evil” he is talking about the branch of philosophy known as meta-ethics. This is something people do professionally. There is a literature on it. When he tries to decide for atheists or naturalists that they have no grounds for caring, because of certain facts about the world, he has committed the most fundamental mistake a meta-ethicist can make – getting an ought from an is without explaining how he got there.

3)      You don’t get to decide what your interlocutor’s meta-ethical view is, or ought to be.  

“Indeed, to speak in such terms is to assume that there is something which goes beyond us, and our universe, something to which we can appeal in order to be outraged at the way things are. From where does the ‘ought’ come? Why ought it to be the case that children don’t undergo pain, and hardship? In an impersonal universe of chance, where evolution is absolute, and we are nothing more than vibrating atoms, there is no claim to be made that some atoms should vibrate in a pleasing way. To suggest that the category of ‘evil’ can remain as a useful human construct misses the fact that whoever says something in the world is wrong, unjust, or evil, they appeal outside the human sphere of authority, to something (Someone?) transcendent.”

This move oozes desperation. The fact that Mr Steadfast needs to be so sceptical about the metaphysics of good and evil just shows how strong the problem of evil is.

In any case, there are various theories of meta-ethics. But it is not even relevant. If someone corrects your mathematical reasoning, do you tell them their worldview can’t explain numbers? Probably not – it would be silly and hypocritical. Stop pretending your worldview has a monopoly on morality or moral explanations. It doesn't.

“What I am saying is that without God, there is no way of accounting for why we even care.”

Using God as a placeholder for meta-ethical explanation is a pathetic attempt at philosophy. You haven’t explained how God grounds morality. You have simply asserted something about transcendence. Who is the rhetorician, really?

“Any model which excludes the Christian God of love and perfection necessarily excludes the complaint that there is even such a thing as suffering, or injustice. In short – if these things trouble you, you (subconsciously, unwittingly) assume the necessary existence of God in order to make the case that God doesn't exist.”

More bad philosophy. There are various ways to take this down. First of all, why not the Muslim God of love and perfection? Secondly, suffering is subjective. Even if there were no truths about justice, sentient organisms would still feel pain.

There is no need to even buy into the concept of objective good and evil in order to run the problem of evil. One can run the problem of suffering instead, which is substantively the same, without loaded language which can be made to look like metaphysical commitments.

So we can criticize the Christian framework without buying into it. Let’s get onto the sceptical defense.

“The Christian God is, quite simply, not like us. He is not a bigger version of me. He is other. He is perfect, in ways that we cannot even begin to understand. He is his own goodness, justice, wisdom, and power.

With an arrogance that so sadly characterizes the brilliant and intelligent people of history, Fry assumes that God can have no reasons for the way things are that he, Stephen Fry, has not countenanced. He gives no consideration to the fact that a being wise and powerful enough to create the universe might just have access to factors, ideas, considerations, to moral qualities of love and goodness, that mere human beings cannot begin to comprehend. That He might have ends, and goals, which are beyond our understanding and judgment.”

So this is the sceptical defence of theism. It is in substance, an appeal to mystery. However, our moral theories cut through such mysteries. Because our notions of suffering, rights, and flourishing have universal scope, it doesn't matter that God is infinite. When someone harms a child, the problem is not that they are not infinitely powerful. The problem is the suffering of the child.

Who is really the moral nihilist? The atheist, or the person who believes that the entire world’s suffering is part of some greater good? And who really believes that humans are “merely puppets” as Christian apologists are wont to accuse?

“In the video, Fry claims that his atheism not only promotes unbelief in general, but also seeks to question what kind of God God might be, given the state of things.”

And also, if God is infinite, and therefore incomprehensible, on what grounds do you say he is good?

“Fry has also removed any semblance of the Christian God, and therefore removed the possibility of a real interaction with this question. It’s an effective presentational skill – neglect any real examination of another position, construct your own ‘opponent’ in its place, and then knock it down. Unfortunately, there is very little substance to it.”

I know, right? For example – “First, given what Stephen Fry believes about life, the universe, and everything, why does he even have a problem? If all that is, is the result of blind chance, an impersonal materialistic universe that just ‘happened’, then what’s the problem of suffering children? What is suffering? Why care? The weak die, the strong survive, the species carries on – the categories of ‘wrong’, or ‘injustice’, or ‘evil’ have no place.”

Moving on…

“We are not entitled to know God’s reasons for what he does, and allows. We may weep, and ache, with the question ‘why?’ We cannot, however, demand God’s justification according to our own standards, and consider him guilty until proven innocent. As a friend remarked concerning this video, it is a great presumption to demand such answers from the one who gives us our very lives.”

This is so sickly and pathetic – and could be used to defend an abusive parent. How can you be so ready to throw away your autonomy and humanity?

In summary, Mr. Steadfast is simply another C.S. Lewis drone, regurgitating bad philosophy, red herrings and quoting the bible, all in a rather butthurt fashion. My advice is to read up on the foundations of morality, and understand why you can’t co-opt it into a deflection of the problem of evil.