Changing horses midstream

The Christain apologist, Wm Lane Craig, loves to say that atheists can’t say there is a problem of evil on theism because, on atheism, there is no good or evil.  This canard is red meat for theists and has gone unchallenged even among atheists.  Craig used it in his debate with Sam Harris and Sam ignored it.  So, I’d like to clear things up, for the record.

The Christian apologist, Wintery Knight, posted this here:

https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/atheism-christianity-and-the-problem-of-evil-and-suffering/

“My point today is that atheists cannot use the apparently gratuitous evil in the world as a disproof that there is a God untilthey define what they mean by evil.

It seems to me that there are 2 choices for what evil could be on atheism. What is NOT open to atheists is the solution above, namely, that evil is a departure from the way things ought to be. Because the universe is an accident on atheism – it is purposeless – there is no way the universe ought to be. We are accidents on atheism. There is no way we ought to be.”

So, are atheists pinned?  Must we remain mute on the problem of evil?  Only if we are barred from exploring what would follow from theism if it were true.  It is not self-refuting to engage in speculation.  WK seems to be saying that only theists can discuss evil.  In this view, I suppose only feminists can discuss feminism and only gay people can discuss homosexuality.

Like Craig, WK commits a fallacy by combining arguments from theism and atheism in the same sentence.  I paraphrase:

‘An atheist errs in accusing God of evil on theism because, on atheism, there is no evil.’

An argument simply does not depend on the views of the speaker. It doesn’t matter whether an atheist, a theist, a maltheist, a misotheist, or a computer is talking. The beliefs of the speaker are irrelevant to the point being discussed.

So, when atheists accuse God of allowing evil, we are necessarily arguing on theism (since God is required for the discussion), and our personal views are irrelevant.

When theists turn and say, “Ha, on atheism there is no evil”, they are changing horses midstream. Atheists don’t have to rebut an argument from atheism in the middle of an argument from theism. It’s a distraction.

Whether evil exists on atheism is a good discussion to have, but it is irrelevant to a discussion of evil and God’s character under theism.  Oy.