A recent video of evangelist and talk show host Dennis Prager was recently posted on my Facebook page. I have included the video below. Comments were invited, so here are mine.
At the outset I should note that Prager's views were not meant to be a thorough exegesis of theodicy, but he did want to make a specific point about why he thought critics were unfairly interpreting the concept. He went on to make a separate point at about the 3:00 mark, where he talks of how hugely impressed he is with an argument by Rabbi Milton Steinberg. The present post addresses only the former argument and not the latter one attributed to Rabbi Steinberg. That one will have to wait for another day.
In a nutshell, Prager first conceded what some of us would see as the central critique: If god, Yahweh at least, is all good, loving and perfect in every way, why would he allow so much suffering in the world, such as war, disease, and natural catastrophes?
Prager says that is a fair point; he concedes that pain and suffering are evidence against a god advertised as both omnipotent and all-merciful. However, and this is the gist of the video, he considers this a one-sided argument. If one insists on listing all the pain and suffering in the world--the bad-- then it is only fair to consider all the good in the world as well.
Really? And if you just learn to add it all up right, and give the credit to god, Prager's god, the good outweighs the bad. So there; god is good after all. Take that, atheists. Lots of suffering, yes, but hey, all that good stuff. Give god a solid B.
Theodicy doesn't claim that everything in the world is negative; this is not a popularity contest, nor is it courtroom application of a legal standard, such as preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt. Christians make some grand claims about their god; they are stuck with the ramifications. We're not talking about whose bag has the most marbles, who can create the longer list, or whether your good "jumps-cancels-captures" my bad. Remember, the claim is that the christian god (or for Prager, Yahweh) is perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent. Saying "there may be ebola in Africa, but hey, look at that beautiful sunset," just doesn't make it. Prager may not realize it, but that is essentially his point; god has let a lot shit happen that he could have stopped, but sunshine, food, pretty things, so let's call it a draw.
Prager has shifted the argument even as he loads up his goody bag. He talks of the world we live in as mostly good, and then insists that all that good stuff be entered as credits on god's ledger. So he commits yet another fallacy when he declares good things as proof of god. He is using a second fallacy to support the first. Now you may share his view; you may claim that your god is the creator of everything---don't leave out Lucifer---but that argument is not only scientifically vacuous, and highly contestable, it is also a separate one. "God did it" must be proven and stand alone before it can be used as evidence for a separate argument about how to add up god's scorecard. Along the way you must be willing to ignore the vast and demonstrable record of how humans have improved their lot in life, by themselves, through unremitting effort. Prager wants you to think yeah, sure, but prayers were tossed up, and ceremonies, and look, the bible, therefore god, the real reason. More points for Yahweh, so rack 'em up.
And after all that, Prager still has all his work ahead of him. The critic--atheist, skeptic, or whomever-- need not prove causality for any of the pain and suffering, e.g., the bad. This is not a pro and con framework; nor is there any need to weight, rank, or categorize any attributes we have come to call bad or good. We are asking why a perfect and all-merciful god would allow all of of this. It is not we who are making the claim that this painful and flawed world is the handiwork of celestial perfection.
If this were war, as some christians like to frame it, we would have to concede that Satan is inflicting heavy damages, for the souls keep piling up in Hell. But no matter, it is moral perfection, and it is the christian god's plan of redemption, so who are you to argue with god? Sounds asinine? You just don't understand, son. If it sounds great, hey that's god. Sounds inane? The devil has hardened your heart. Sounds hopelessly random, as Prager admits, well, who of us can understand god?
The most christians can say is that they really don't understand the concept they call god (as some do), instead of claiming to know what they cannot possibly know, not to mention the rather tawdry insistence on speaking for a god that never speaks for himself.
Now might be the time to invoke that tiresome bromide about how god works in mysterious ways. Admit that Yahweh of the Old Testament, or version 2.0 of the New, is too remote and ineffable to understand.
And then stop pretending as if you do.
