the question of god

I just watched a recording of PBS’s special, The Question of God, on the religious views of CS Lewis and Sigmund Freud. While interesting at times, it can only be judged a disappointment. The book by the same name is a better choice for people who want to find out about the spiritual views of these two influential thinkers. The major problem of the show lies in the use of the discussion panel. The biographical segments with commentary by various people (eg. Peter Kreeft on Lewis) was much more interesting and informative. What we have are bunch of people, obviously intelligent, and asking good questions, but coming to the conclusion that there are no good answers to the problems brought up in the show. Of course when I say good answers, ‘good’ is in the eye of the beholder. One exchange (and the only name I remember is Michael Shermer’s) on the problem of evil was telling. One panelist, a theist, brought up free will as the solution to evil in the world as though (and perhaps one should not judge too harshly considering the limitations of the format, such as time constraints) that were the only answer available to be given. Another panelist, a skeptic, pointed out that free will would not explain the occurrence of natural evil and suffering such as that caused by earthquakes or hurricanes. There are two problems here. First, the impression was given that no other answer was available. Second, the impression was given that even if there were an answer, the panelists who were theists were not in possession of that answer.
One might ask if there are any good answers to natural evil (earthquakes, hurricanes, mudslides and the like). Well, that may depend on who you ask and how much certainty you want in the answer. My own take is that we can provide models for how it might be possible for a good and powerful god to allow evil, without going to the point of saying that the model explains with absolute certainty how god would allow evil. Perhaps the models are inaccurate, but if we mere, finite humans can come up with possible reasons for why god would allow various types of evil, then surely god himself has a reason. I’m inclined to think, though, that few atheists would be convinced by a model provided by a theist. Why should they? Few theists, at first blush anyways, would probably not give up belief in god at the first instance of evil or suffering that they face. This type of problem goes both ways. But that doesn’t mean either side ought to give up trying to convince the other.
So, one model for looking at natural evil is through the use of the natural law theodicy. A theodicy is any explanation that tries to justify the presence of evil in light of a good and powerful god. An atheist may put it this way: If god is all powerful he would be able to eliminate all evil. If god is all good he would want to eliminate all evil. However, there is evil. Therefore, there is no good and powerful god. The theist could try try to backtrack and say that there is in fact a god but that he isn’t so good or so powerful as to eliminate all evil that people experience. Christian theists, however, would probably not want to go down this route. Christians believe that god is indeed all good and all powerful. (I’ll get back to this at a later date; not that anyone’s that interested, I’m sure).