I agree that the burden of proof would be upon those who claim, full stop, that the existence of so much evil absolutely disproves the existence of God. A claim like that sets the bar extremely high. But it isn't my position.
My position has been that there are instances of evil which do not seem to be necessary for any greater good, so they probably aren't, and count as evidence against the existence of the theist God. And more than that, its my position that the sheer abundance of it tips the scales in favor of the belief that God does not exist. The bar is much lower here and the stakes are a little different. The argument, if successful, requires one to accept that the existence of God is less likely than the non-existence of God, but not the conclusion that God is impossible.
I see what you mean, but the bolded excerpt is what I have, and once had, trouble with.
The assumption that whatever evils exist in the world, or a select few of them, are probably not necessary is, well, just that - an assumption, and too much of one, for me. Again, we simply don't know and can't be sure that X observable evil is necessary or not, or a part of a given god's plan or not, or what have you. The position many atheists take when they say that evil disproves God is just based on too many narrow assumptions to seem anything more than just plain silly. It's the padded nursery problem, again.
Now, to say that it renders God
less likely to exist - that's certainly more reasonable, but either way is based too much on what I cannot fail to see as a very blind and narrow assumption, if you understand.
What is necessary for this world to function isn't really the crux of the problem. An all-powerful being has the power to create any possible world. So its not a matter of asking whether natural evil is necessary for THIS world.. its about asking whether an omnipotent God could have created a world which both accomplished His divine goals, AND contained less (or perhaps even no) natural evil - because If he could have, he would have.
Think about the burden this places on the theist... out of any possible universe imaginable, the theist is committed to the belief that THIS one, a universe with such a seemingly over-abundance of natural (and moral) evil, is the best possible world that God could have instantiated in order to accomplish his goals. The bar for that claim is extremely high - almost as high as the bar for the claim that God is incompatible with any evil, full stop. Raising a few potential possibilities (soul building, etc) isnt enough for me. I need strong reasons to actually believe them and to actually believe that gratuitous looking evils in this world are not as they appear to be.
I used to hold that exact same argument, and stated it many times. And yes, it is puzzling as to why God would permit things to go on as they have, seeing as in all likelihood the universe could be much "better" than what it is.
There are two problems I have with this. First, it goes back to the assumption that God hasn't done anything to lessen the amount and severity of evil in the world. I touched on that before, so you know what I mean.
The second is that perhaps God isn't able to make the world into a paradise/padded nursery, that such an invention would somehow be unable to function. Possibly, God might not be able to create such a thing, for any number of reasons. I suppose we could refer to the question "could God make a rock so big even He couldn't lift it?".
The quote I pasted was meant to address something else. Theists often claim to know all sorts of things about God, His values, His intentions for us and the world. However, they they also tend to claim that He is mysterious and unknowable when certain arguments come up, like the problem of evil. So that seems like a double standard to me.
Also, when one starts relying on the mysterious God defenses, things get difficult for theism really quickly. The ability to say much of anything conclusive about God and his purposes, good or bad, is severely undermined. Many philosophers even argue that mysterious God defenses ultimately lead to the complete destruction of moral reasoning!
The "mysterious God defense" might lead to the destruction of moral reasoning, only if it were applied in such a way as to quash all attempts at pondering God to begin with, I'd think. Otherwise, allowing for a mind and intellect that is highly complex and in all likelihood extremely difficult and maybe even impossible for us humans to fully understand allows in turn for explanations and/or possible explanations of many things, such as evil. That the mind of God might indeed be unknowable certainly doesn't stop anyone from pondering why He has done X or allowed Y and so forth.
I don't think it would lead to a double standard at all, so long as one does not claim to know absolutely the mind of God, or on the other hand claim to know there is no God whatsoever. It is just allowing for the very real possibility that we humans do not know everything there is about the cosmos.
One could also speculate that God has indeed revealed things about Himself, especially if one subscribes to a particular religion, or even if one merely believes that God has used many or even all world religions in order to communicate/try to communicate (given human imperfections and so forth) truths about Himself and/or morality, etc.
Look, its not about stomping my feet and woefully wailing about the state of the world. I love my life, and I think it rather amazing, to be honest. I'm thankful to be in this world. It just looks like a godless one to me.
My apologies if you thought I was stating that about you; it was intended to be about how I view atheist claims in general. The fact that most atheists seem to come from a generally Left-leaning stance is one I find interesting and possibly telling about how they view such spiritual matters as these.
