Is evil a disproof for Christianity?

What would you say if an atheist asked you to tell him how best to shake your Christian faith? It would be a strange question wouldn't it? Rather like Caleb Bradham (founder of Pepsi) calling up Asa Griggs Candler (one time head of Coca-Cola) and asking for the secret formula to Coke. And yet, that is what I was asked by one of my readers, ConverseAtheist, in the thread to my last blog post:

I would love to raise defeaters against your [Christian] belief, but I do not know what counts to you. You apparently have some kind of idea about the kinds of defeaters and evidence it would take for you to admit a defeater to your worldview.

Well you gotta admit, the guy has moxie. Asking a Christian for tips on arguing against Christianity? But then I thought, why not?

Unfortunately I have to begin on a sour note by dealing with a certain misguided hope. Remember the ending of Star Wars when Luke Skywalker flies in and fires his x-wing fighter at the one spot on the Death Star that can blow the thing up? It seems to me that ConverseAtheist might be looking at Christianity like this (and if not him then many other atheists I have met do), that is, such that one well chosen argument or line of evidence will be able to blow the whole thing up.  

Well I'm sorry to have to tell him that Christianity is not like the Death Star. It isn't likely to be "blown up" by any one argument. And a good way to see the complexity is by considering the most serious defeater to Christian belief: the problem of evil.

When we come to evil, here's the basic question. How is it that an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God allows evil? Isn't there some contradiction here? Many skeptics have argued this, and thus have concluded that because evil exists, God does not. The problem with this argument is that there is actually no contradiction between God and evil because God could have overriding goods to allow evil.

How so? Consider for instance a toddler who is forced every day by her parents to take a horrendously tasting medicine which is essential for her survival. She might ask herself: how can my parents love me when they subject me to such misery every day? And yet the parents force her to ingest this horrible medicine for a greater good: her survival and ultimate healing.

Is it possible that God allows all the evils in the world because he intends to achieve a greater good by doing so? Surely the gap in understanding between a human being and God is infinitely greater than the gap between a toddler and a parent. So if the toddler might have trouble understanding the parents' good intentions, how much more might a mere, finite mortal have trouble understanding God's intentions? So if we cannot know that God could have no greater goods in mind, then evil does not present a critical defeater to Christian belief.

But we're not out of the woods yet. Let's consider one more specific problem of evil: the problem of hell.

The mainstream doctrine concerning the fate of those people who reject God's offer of salvation is that they go to hell, a place of eternal conscious torment. However, in the minds of many this doctrine is irreconcilable with a loving and just God. For one thing, hell assumes a purely retributive sense of justice which conflicts with current rehabilitative models for the offender. And in addition, it offers a degree of retribution (in intensity and duration) which can only be considered incomprehensibly excessive.

So is this problem serious enough to serve as a defeater of Christianity? Yet again the atheist will likely come up disappointed. Some Christians will respond by invoking again the inherent limitations of human understanding. Further, many contend that once we recognize the significance of sinning against an infinite God, we will see the justice of hell.

These responses may work for some Christians, but not for all. Other Christians will agree with the atheist that this is not a satisfying response. So does hell consitute a defeater for these people?

It may indeed constitute a defeater, but that defeater may be directed against the traditional doctrine of hell rather than Christianity itself. Thus, some Christians have rejected eternal conscious torment by opting for an annihilationist or universalistic view of hell. The former understands hell to lead to the destruction of the individual (and thus no ongoing torment), while the latter views hell as purgatorial, perhaps like a native healing circle, offering a process through which all are ultimately reconciled to God.

The lesson is that, intellectually speaking, Christianity is not easily disloged by even the most serious defeaters. 

A final note: this discussion is limited to the intellectual sphere of rationality and defeaters. Those who are suffering from the injustices of the world are not typically worried about the rational questions of belief. They want people to be with them in their suffering. Alas, that is a lot more challenging than writing a short, apologetic blog post.