![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/04\/RightWrong.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is a follow-up to my article,\u00a0Problem of Good: More Difficult than Problem of Evil?<\/a> (4-3-21). The discussions took place in a long<\/em> thread<\/a>\u00a0(currently 895 comments) on atheist Jonathan MS Pearce\u2019s blog, A Tippling Philosopher. <\/em>Words of my four dialogue opponents will be in various colors.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Geoff Benson<\/a>:\u00a0I\u2019ve read your article but it takes me back to my early days discussing the philosophy of religion, and addresses issues we\u2019ve covered so many times. I\u2019m not trying to be \u2018anti Dave Armstrong\u2019, but I really am not convinced by anything in this article.<\/span><\/p>\n Essentially it boils down to the idea that atheists may actually be good and decent people but that, ultimately, there\u2019s no underlying foundation as to why they should be this way, whilst believers (and I concede that you are careful not to confine it to Christianity) have the ultimate foundation in god. Atheism gave rise to Hitler and Stalin, with regimes that we all agree were horrific beyond description. Under Dave\u2019s belief system both of these genocidal dictators get to suffer, whilst atheism accepts they simply die, end of story. Without god atheists can\u2019t really be sure what is meant by good, and so find it difficult to discuss evil in a meaningful way.<\/span><\/p>\n Where does one begin? Well for starters, the fact that Hitler and Stalin escape eternal punishment is simply a fact, if atheism is valid. Wishing it were otherwise (and this point alone is capable of lengthy analysis) doesn\u2019t make it so. Life, the universe, and everything need not be fair under nature. In any event, Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators don\u2019t demonstrate the dangers of atheism, they demonstrate the dangers of totalitarianism, combined with other incendiary features. Many of the worst genocidal dictators have been devoutly religious, Franco actually carrying out many of his policies in the name of his beloved Catholic Church, whilst the African genocides that are still being perpetrated for some reason go under the radar, and religious superstition is a major factor in these atrocities.<\/span><\/p>\n No heed is paid to the reality of what it means to have morality based on god. Where does this morality come from? Is it put into human natures, such that everybody has it? This doesn\u2019t explain why it varies so much between people, seemingly absent in many, and also means that it would be imbued in atheists, which this article implies doesn\u2019t happen. So it must actually be delivered by some sort of divine instruction, and the bible appears to be the only text which might be considered relevant in this respect (with all due lack of respect to Mormons). The problem is with any form of divine instruction that it must be clear, and it\u2019s incredibly not clear! There are many hundreds of commandments littered throughout, especially the OT, and they are either obvious (thou shalt not kill, really!), or particular to the time they were written, or just plain silly. More especially, however, and I think this is the gotcha point, the recipient must make a conscious decision to accept the instruction, and that is subjective. Suppose god had said it\u2019s actually okay to kill people, would it then be okay? Of course not. So everyone, you included, must make the, albeit unconscious, decision that a particular type of behaviour is consistent with your own standards of morality, but you then attribute it to god.<\/span><\/p>\n Morality is something that is slowly learned over time by cultures that exist in different circumstances, with different rules and religions, yet all seem to acquire similar principles. The argument that if atheism is valid then people are free to rape and murder as they please is so much nonsense, on every level. As Matt Dillahunty says, \u201cI do rape and murder all I want, and that\u2019s exactly nil\u201d. Steven Pinker in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined<\/em>, argues convincingly that morality has improved throughout western society as religious belief has waned and secularism has become the norm. That\u2019s my position. Religion is an obstacle to morality.<\/span><\/p>\n Finally, and on the same theme, your comment \u201cThe atheist is simply living off the cultural (and internal spiritual) \u201ccapital\u201d of Christianity, whether he or she realizes it or not.\u201d Oh no you don\u2019t Dave, quite the reverse. To quote Jerry Coyne \u201cSecular values brought about morality, and religion tried to take the credit\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n You make an interesting reply, and I appreciate it (as I do your usual amiability), but somehow you never got to my\u00a0topic<\/i>: the Problem of Good. Instead, it\u2019s the same old tired atheist tactic of switching the topic over to Christianity. The Problem of Good is not\u00a0about\u00a0<\/i>Christianity. It\u2019s about\u00a0atheism<\/i>. It\u2019s your problem, just as the Problem of Evil is ours to grapple with and explain. You have done exactly nothing to ameliorate it, because you haven\u2019t\u00a0discussed<\/i>\u00a0it. You\u2019re certainly more than capable of it. You have a head on your shoulders. But you chose diversion.<\/p>\n Your task is to explain how a binding, objective moral system, applying to all (which is presupposed by all laws and justice systems, which enforce laws by punishing offenders), is constructed under atheist premises. And you need to explain how and why evil systems which expressly claim to be atheist or at least non-religious, such as Stalin\u2019s Russia and Mao\u2019s China, do\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0fall under \u201catheist consequences\u201d; i.e., on what basis are they \u201cout of the fold\u201d?<\/p>\n I think I do address the point, though I did overlook your assertion that god instils goodness in everyone which helps offset any tendency to evil. Your article actually finds itself constantly constrained to talk about evil, whilst ostensibly stressing that it\u2019s the existence of good that sinks the atheist argument. I thought I\u2019d addressed every point in your final paragraph, but if there\u2019s something on which I wasn\u2019t clear then tell me.<\/span><\/p>\n It depends on what one thinks dialogue is. I think (if one is really serious and has the time and desire) it deals point-by-point with the opponent\u2019s argument. It\u2019s about actual interaction: not just \u201cperson\u00a0A<\/i>\u00a0makes argument\u00a0X<\/i>\u201d followed by \u201cperson\u00a0B<\/i>\u00a0makes conflicting argument\u00a0Y<\/i>\u00a0as opposed to a direct counter-reply to\u00a0X<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n My challenge to you and all atheists here is to make a reply to the Problem of Good objection without ever mentioning Christianity or God and not resorting to the \u201cyour dad\u2019s uglier than mine\u201d topic-diverting mentality.<\/p>\n The reply concerning every difficulty in atheism raised by theists and Christians is not \u201cBut\u00a0Christianity<\/i>\u00a0. . . \u201d or \u201cBut\u00a0God<\/i>\u00a0. . . \u201d or \u201cBut the\u00a0Bible<\/i>\u00a0. . . \u201d<\/p>\n You guys come off constantly looking like you\u2019re obsessed with us and about a God you don\u2019t even believe exists, rather than confident in your own position and ready to defend it against all critiques.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Carstonio<\/a>: Ridiculous to try to prove the existence of a being through logical argument instead of consideration of evidence. There\u2019s no way to know if any deities exist, and presupposing a deity creates the problem of evil, not the other way around. Better to take the concept of deity off the table entirely and address good and evil on their own.<\/span><\/p>\n And that\u2019s what my present argument does. When I mentioned God and Christianity it was only as \u201cdiversions\u201d in reply to my atheist debate opponents. They are not required to make the critique, since it\u2019s a critique of the internal incoherence and arbitrariness of atheism with regard to ethics and morality.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n im-skeptical:<\/a>\u00a0Well, I took a quick look at it. His argument assumes up-front that God is what creates goodness and meaning. He makes no allowance for human-derived conceptions of those things. Without the assumption of God, the whole thing has no basis. This is the kind of circular reasoning that typifies so many theistic arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s my Christian assumption, yes, but it has\u00a0no<\/b><\/i>\u00a0direct relation to\u00a0my critique of the atheist problem of good<\/i>. The two things are conceptually and logically distinct. If you took more than a \u201cquick look\u201d at my post you would realize that (whether you admitted it here in front of your echo chamber buddies or not).<\/p>\n The critique can be made with no reference to the Christian position at all. But in a very long dialogue, I did mention (as a separate sub-discussion) the Christian view as a superior and more plausible one, when confronted by my dialogue opponent. It doesn\u2019t mean that I base my\u00a0critique<\/i>\u00a0on that; let alone that I engaged in circular reasoning. I absolutely did\u00a0not<\/i><\/b>.<\/p>\n Christians take the problem of evil seriously. Atheists (as you did here) very often try to pretend that you have no similar problem according to your own presuppositions. This won\u2019t do. It\u2019s not serious thinking. We grapple with serious objections (that\u00a0all\u00a0<\/b><\/i>belief-systems contain). You guys mostly ignore serious objections to your own outlook. And that doesn\u2019t give anyone on the fence confidence that you have a more plausible or appealing case, or more truth than we do.<\/p>\n The only reason you suppose atheists have a \u201cproblem of good\u201d is you think there is no way to explain it without resorting to God. A naturalist has no problem explaining human behavior as a product of evolution. And if you think there\u2019s a problem with that, it\u2019s only because you don\u2019t understand how evolution could bring this about. It is your presuppositions, not mine, that prevent you from understanding.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Anri<\/a>: With a possible difference being that atheists attribute their belief systems, irrational or not, to fallible humans rather than a perfect god.<\/span><\/p>\n Presumably, symmetrical issues should not be a problem when one side is being backed by the most powerful being possible. The explanation \u201cWell, you have problem, too!\u201d get kind of weak when one considers the presumed sources of the solutions \u2013 or lack thereof.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m not saying it\u2019s not serious. I\u2019m saying limited being should expect serious issues with what their moral systems.\u00a0All-powerful beings, not so much.\u00a0I\u2019m not dismissing the issue, I\u2019m pointing out the issues inherent with assuming symmetry.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s symmetrical only in the following sense:<\/p>\n 1) The atheist assumes a good, all-powerful Christian God for the sake of argument and then proceeds to raise what are regarded as extreme or even fatal difficulties for Christians, that come about because of the existence (and ultimate basis or grounding) of evil.<\/p>\n 2) The theist assumes the\u00a0absence<\/i>\u00a0of a good, all-powerful Christian God for the sake of argument and then proceeds to raise what are regarded as extreme or even fatal difficulties for atheists, that come about because of the existence (and ultimate basis or grounding) of good.<\/p>\n In other words, the symmetry and analogy is between evil in relation to a posited God, and good in relation to a posited non-existence of God and therefore the necessity of human beings as the basis of good and determination of necessary ethical absolutes; rather than God vs. no God.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a very serious and troubling internal difficulty in your position, just as you argue that the problem of evil is a very serious and troubling internal difficulty in ours. Both arguments have to do with morality and ethics and how we build such systems to be able to live in a (hopefully) good world. Both arguments presuppose that there is such a thing as \u201cgood\u201d and it\u2019s opposite: evil or (if one prefers) the lack of good, and that \u201cgood\u201d is exponentially more preferable and desirable.<\/p>\n One argument assumes we can, and indeed, must, define good for ourselves, whereas the other presumes good is a quality handed down perfectly by a perfect being, who only fails at the hurdle of making it intelligible to us.<\/span><\/p>\n As an atheist, I don\u2019t have to assume some Platonic ideal of good \u2013 a universal code of good goodness that supersedes all possible questioning and argument. I\u00a0could<\/i>, and some do, but it\u2019s not needed.<\/span><\/p>\n I am willing to accept a flawed, entirely imperfect, in-process, in-progress, probably-never-to-be-perfected concept of good \u2013 so long as the premise of the argument does not require one. This concept only gains force when someone insists on it as a premise of their argument.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m entirely willing to abandon the concept of a perfect good to explain imperfect good in the world.<\/span><\/p>\n Are you?<\/span><\/p>\n If not, the premises of our arguments are not the same, so different results are only to be expected.<\/span><\/p>\n You assume that there is some semblance or actuality of absolute good (and the lack of it: \u201cevil\u201d or \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cimmoral\u201d or \u201cunethical\u201d) in order to make the problem of evil in the first place (one of my arguments in my post).<\/p>\n You can believe whatever you wish. But if you deny any sense of an objective good, it seems to me that it follows that you can make no \u201cproblem of evil\u201d argument against God and theism, because you have to presuppose it for the argument to get off the ground.<\/p>\n Thus, atheists presuppose in their endless problem of evil soliloquies that the Holocaust and child molestation and rape and murder and economic exploitation and slavery and racism and sexism and on and on, are objective evils that God is supposedly accountable for. If they weren\u2019t, then the argument would instantly collapse.<\/p>\n As a Christian, I can\u2019t\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>accept a perfect good, since in our view, that notion is grounded in God and His character and nature and essence. To do so would be to instantly cease being a Christian.<\/p>\n I was under the impression most Christians consider god to be the source of, and an example of, perfect good.\u00a0<\/span>If you think this is not, or should not be the case, I\u2019ll be happy to refer any Christian saying such a thing to you for correction.<\/span><\/p>\n In making a \u2018problem of evil\u2019 argument, I am just accepting the Christian premise that god exists, and is perfectly good. Again, if you think this is a bad premise for Christians to accept, I\u2019ll make sure to let everyone know if they ever go so.<\/span><\/p>\n If your argument is that the Christian god sanctioned the Holocaust due to him not having a basis for considering it evil, I\u2019ll be sure to let folks know about that, too. Is that your argument? I don\u2019t want to mischaracterize you.<\/span><\/p>\n How can good be \u201cgrounded in God and His character and nature and essence\u201d [my words] and yet God is somehow NOT the source and example of it? What am I missing? Yeah, \u201c[G]od exists, and is perfectly good.\u201d What in the world would give you the notion that I would\u00a0deny\u00a0<\/i>that? It\u2019s hopelessly confused.<\/p>\n The last paragraph is so outrageous and absurd that it deserves no reply.<\/p>\n If you want to deal with my argument, then address\u00a0it\u00a0itself<\/b><\/i>. These \u201cmeta\u201d discussions (talking\u00a0about<\/i>\u00a0things and \u201cskating along the edges\u201d rather than discussing the thing itself) get old very quick.<\/p>\n As it is, here we are (as always) discussing God and the Christian view, when my critique is of the\u00a0atheist<\/i><\/b>\u00a0view. It\u2019s the oldest atheist game in the book to always switch the conversation over to Christianity, so that they never have to have their own views scrutinized. It just makes you guys look intellectually lightweight.<\/p>\n So, if we accept that one side of the argument presupposes a universal perfect grounding for a universal good, and the other does not\u2026 good and evil are going to play out\u00a0very differently<\/i>\u00a0in these worldviews, and thus they should not be presumed to be mirror images of one another.<\/span><\/p>\n But if you deny any sense of an objective good, it seems to me that it follows that you can make no \u201cproblem of evil\u201d argument against God and theism, because you have to presuppose it for the argument to get off the ground.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But in arguments about the problem of evil, an\u00a0accepted premise of the argument<\/i>\u00a0is that god exists, and is the source of perfect good. That\u2019s why arguments along these lines are an issue for Christians \u2013 who (presumably) accept this premise, but not for atheists, who need not.<\/span><\/p>\n The atheist difficulty is that\u00a0good<\/i>\u00a0exists at all. You have at least as much of a problem in defining and establishing that as we do in establishing the existence of God.<\/p>\n As I explicitly said, I am willing to accept the concept of good as something people agree upon, rather than something foisted upon us externally. In that respect, there\u2019s no more of an issue for an atheist saying good exists than there is saying blue exists.<\/span><\/p>\n What I don\u2019t require is that there is a single, all-encompassing, eternal, perfect code of good that humans must cleave to to correctly use the term.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m not saying objective, universal good is impossible \u2013 and there are atheists who argue for it \u2013 but I do not have to accept that it exists, or that we have or will ever have access to it if it does exist to use the term.<\/span><\/p>\n Do I have a rigorous definition of \u201cgood\u201d?\u00a0No, I don\u2019t.\u00a0I don\u2019t know that one exists.\u00a0But a broad, flawed, imperfect, lots-of-grey-area-type agreement can be made on at least some aspects of it.<\/span><\/p>\n And that\u2019s exactly the same situation with religion. The difference being, an atheist doesn\u2019t have to explain away a perfect god mucking up the delivery of it so terribly badly.<\/span><\/p>\n If you don\u2019t have a definition of good, then you don\u2019t have a\u00a0problem<\/i>, do you? You have made the problem vanish (or so you think) by your refusal to define. And you will be unable to condemn many evils concerning which virtually everyone agrees, if you have no definition of good.<\/p>\n If you don\u2019t have a definition of good\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And this is the biggest issue with my own worldview. I don\u2019t so much lack a definition of\u00a0good<\/i>\u00a0(I would tentatively define it as a hypothetical balance point between respecting the greater good and respecting individual rights of self and freedom \u2013 all of which are themselves fraught terms, of course\u2026) it\u2019s that the definition isn\u2019t exact or rigorous.<\/span><\/p>\n This is a problem, at least philosophically. One I don\u2019t have a ready answer to.<\/span><\/p>\n And, yes, there is no way to identify things which are accepted as moral now which might be demonstrated as immoral at some future point.<\/span><\/p>\n The advantage (if it is one) is that I understand this \u2013 I am certain, entirely certain, that there are things I consider moral which will be viewed as immoral by a more enlightened future society, possibly even by a more enlightened, future\u00a0me<\/i>. And I don\u2019t know what these are.<\/span><\/p>\n But my overall point is that unless theists can make an airtight case for god\u2019s existence, and his essential goodness,\u00a0they are in the same boat morally, except that they don\u2019t admit it<\/i>. They have the same problems of following a human-given set of laws, but they believe that these have come from somewhere else, somewhere better. If the specific god they believe in doesn\u2019t exist, or isn\u2019t as they imagined\u2026 they haven\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n And the fact that the religious have participated in horrors and immorality \u2013 as often as not in the name of their god\u2019s morality \u2013 leads me to believe that none of us have even partial access to some perfect moral source.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s why I think the comparison is not apt \u2013 one side claims a perfect source as a premise of the argument, the other does not.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m very impressed that you (alone in this forum so far) admit that this is a \u201cproblem\u201d and an \u201cissue\u201d in your worldview. Likewise, we Christians acknowledge the problem of evil as our biggest difficulty. Obviously, neither of us consider these problems fatal to our views or we wouldn\u2019t still hold them.<\/p>\n You have to determine what \u201cenlightened\u201d means, and who determines what is \u201cenlightened\u201d and what isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n I think we need to distinguish between epistemology and internal coherence and consistency. The two problems are suggested as difficulties within particular systems. Our system includes many things that yours does not: God, revelation, the supernatural, faith; as well as things we hold in common (love of reason and science and philosophy).<\/p>\n Part of our system is the knowledge of what Jesus, the God-Man did for us. He chose to die one of the most horrible deaths imaginable for our sake. That shows us how much God loves us, and also (importantly) that He is also willing to suffer (as an incarnate man; God the Father actually can\u2019t suffer). He didn\u2019t separate Himself from all our sufferings. And so we believe He is loving based on that and how He revealed Himself in the Bible, and many of our experiences as Christians (of joy, peace, strength, and so forth).<\/p>\n That\u2019s why we believe He is good, even though there are many things in this life very difficult to understand. And His Resurrection, that we will celebrate today, shows us that He is omnipotent and that He has conquered death. It\u2019s one basis for believing in an afterlife: which itself makes sense, per the arguments I have already made about \u201ccosmic justice.\u201d There is much more than just this life. We all will live eternally: not just 70-80-odd years and then nothing whatsoever . . .<\/p>\n Why we believe all these things is, of course, a much more involved and complex discussion. I\u2019m simply describing how the system works and is, we believe, coherent, with regard to this difficulty of evil: no matter how much we may not understand. That\u2019s part of belief in God, too: there is a Supreme Being, of infinite intelligence and knowledge, Who understands things that we never could understand, without His help. That\u2019s our system: believe it or not.<\/p>\n The main defense against the problem of evil objection is the free will defense: to which atheists respond by denying free will. So that\u2019s another big discussion (but, alas, one that bores me). I see human free will and free choices as self-evidently true. If everything we do is determined, then it\u2019s senseless to even have these conversations.<\/p>\n These are my thoughts for now. Thanks again for your openness and transparency and willingness to engage. I admire that.<\/p>\n I wanted to make a quick reply \u2013 nothing novel, of course \u2013 to a few things you said. If this thread is becoming cumbersome or tiresome, we can just use these two posts as kind of \u2018policy positions\u2019 and not get into point-by-point if you\u2019d prefer.<\/span><\/p>\n A quick-and-dirty definition of \u2018enlightened\u2019 might be \u201cmore knowledgeable and understanding about the world\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n See, for myself, I assume a system in which someone has to suffer \u2013 when the person setting the rules can set literally any rules, including the rule \u201cno-one has to suffer\u201d already has missed a major point of \u2018good\u2019. I am in no way suggesting god is\u00a0obligated<\/i>\u00a0to remove suffering, just that a system with less suffering is superior to a system that involves suffering, when there are no restrictions on the way the system is built.<\/span><\/p>\n The problem, for me, with merely invoking god\u2019s mystery as an explanation for why human understanding falls short is that there\u2019s no reason not to apply that to\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0aspect of god \u2013 that any and all attempts to understand any part of god\u2019s will, or message, or anything, is essentially wrong-headed. Otherwise, you\u2019re claiming at least a partial understanding of god.<\/span><\/p>\n If god is beyond human comprehension, than any statement attributing any coherence of god\u2019s actions is automatically suspect. This includes what god \u2018says\u2019 directly through scripture \u2013 honestly might very well mean something very different to god than it does to us.<\/span><\/p>\n If the answer to this, in turn, is that that\u2019s was faith is for, then the issue becomes that all faith positions about god become equally valid, as there\u2019s no intelligible way to determine between them.<\/span><\/p>\n As far as free will goes, some atheists deny free will, some do not (you\u2019ll find many argument to that effect on this blog, all between atheists). Personally, I believe in free will, but I suspect that\u2019s an irrational belief. I comfort myself with the notion that if I am right, I\u2019m right, and if I\u2019m wrong, I lack the free will to change my mind.<\/span><\/p>\n But if free will exists in heaven, evil and sin and suffering can be entirely separated from it and thus it does not offer a way out of the problem of evil. And if free will does not exist in heaven, god does not respect it as much as many seem to say he does.<\/span><\/p>\n This got quite long, and I apologize for that. There\u2019s a lot to unpack in what you said, and as I don\u2019t use philosophical shorthand jargon \u2013 as I don\u2019t know it \u2013 I often take quite a while explaining what I am trying to say using more common language. Hence my verbosity.<\/span><\/p>\n Most of this is about the problem of evil, which is off-topic. So is the nature of Christian faith, mysteries about God, and free will. I appreciate your comment, but I\u2019m very strict about staying right on-topic.<\/span><\/p>\n I am developing my case further in the combox<\/a> of my related article<\/a> on my own blog, by suggesting a test case, with a prerogative to ask many more necessary socratic questions, which will clarify my case and also make clear my objections to the atheist position(s) on morality and right and wrong.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>Tumisu<\/a>\u00a0(12-2-17)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>:\u00a0The problem of good, which is a Christian \u201cturning the tables\u201d counter-reply to the problem of evil, is discussed in-depth with four atheists: one of whom admitted it was a problem.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is a follow-up to my article,\u00a0Problem of Good: More Difficult than Problem of Evil? (4-3-21). The discussions took place in a long thread\u00a0(currently 895 comments) on atheist Jonathan MS Pearce\u2019s blog, A Tippling Philosopher. Words of my four dialogue opponents will be in various colors. ***** Geoff Benson:\u00a0I\u2019ve read your article but it takes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":55852,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,112],"tags":[267,258,7233,7239,328,7119,254,7801,496,477,7236,1346,119,332,174,175,1456,1497,7122,7242,253,1455],"class_list":["post-55849","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-philosophy-science","tag-agnosticism","tag-atheism","tag-atheist-premises","tag-christian-premises","tag-epistemology","tag-epistemology-of-atheism","tag-faith-and-reason","tag-human-suffering","tag-humanism","tag-materialism","tag-materialist-premises","tag-miracles","tag-philosophy-of-religion","tag-presuppositions","tag-problem-of-evil","tag-problem-of-good","tag-science-christianity","tag-scientific-materialism","tag-secular-humanism","tag-starting-axioms","tag-theistic-arguments","tag-theistic-philosophy"],"yoast_head":"\n