Atheists’ go-to philosophical argument against theism is the problem of evil. How can an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, all-loving God allow so much evil in this world? Therefore, such a God doesn’t exist.
What they don’t seem to understand is that the “problem of evil” question actually affirms the existence of God. You can’t even understand what evil is without God. Without God, there is no standard of good and evil.
There is absolutely no evidence of good and evil in the animal kingdom, from which we all allegedly evolved. We see acts in the animal world that exactly resemble rape, murder, cannibalism, torture, infanticide, child abandonment. But we all know that none of those exist in the animal world.
In order for Atheists to be consistent, they have to be able to look at child sacrifices in the Aztec culture with the same amusement that they’d have watching a female praying mantis behead and consume a dazed male right after mating with him. They’d have to be able to look at the terrorist attacks in Paris with the same moral indifference as they would watching a lion chase down a gazelle to eat it. We’re all animals after all. Lions and female praying mantises aren’t murderers. They’re just acting on their instincts and satisfying their appetites. Humans should be looked at no differently.
The Blaze reported on Guillaume Bignon’s reaction to the Paris attacks. Bignon is a former Atheist from Paris who currently lives in New York with his family. He’s now a theologian:
“The only option for French atheists (among whose ranks I used to count myself), is to maintain that there isn’t really any such thing as evil,” Bignon wrote. “When one denies the existence of God as a transcendent creator of the universe who ordains how humans ought to live their lives, one is left only with conflicting opinions about what individuals like and dislike.”
He continued, “If there is no God then there is no objective truth about the good and the bad.”
Bignon said that he believes denying God’s existence also means throwing out the notion of “objective good” and “objective evil.” It is with that in mind that the theologian then framed what it means to be a “consistent atheist.”
“To be a consistent atheist one must affirm that the Islamic terrorists in Paris didn’t do anything ‘wrong’, as such,” he wrote. “They only acted out of line with our personal preferences, (and in line with theirs). If there’s no ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, that’s all we are left with.”
“Maybe that way of reasoning about good and evil strikes you as crazy. ‘Of course the terrorists were wrong and their acts were evil’ the atheist says,” Bignon wrote. “I agree, which is why I think the reality of the evil we just witnessed makes atheism so implausible.”
Atheists of course are quick to point out that they can discern good and evil just fine without any belief in God. I believe that they can as well (sort of). But they’re not able to do that without (unintentionally) appealing to God’s moral order. And that’s the whole point. We’re all operating inside the same moral structure. The difference is that Christian theists openly acknowledge that moral order as being inherent in God’s creation, and Atheists pretend it doesn’t exist. But we’re both appealing to the same standard, whether we like it or not.
The very question of the problem of evil is totally absurd inside an Atheist worldview. To be a consistent Atheist, then you can’t believe in “evil.”