Theism´s demand

 

A powerful criticism of theism by Emerson Green, who is actually somewhat more sympathetic to religious worldviews than the average atheist. Maybe because he isn´t a materialist? Currently, he defines himself as an agnostic. Some quotes below, and then the link to Green´s substack.  

>>>It’s true that the kind, degree, and distribution of pain (and pleasure) in our world is evidence supporting an indifferent universe. But for me, there’s something else blocking the road to theism. I can’t shake the feeling that it would be wrong to believe, somehow. Becoming a theist would require a seal of approval on the suffering on earth. I would have to believe, for any instance of pain, or at least for pain in general, that it was okay that it occurred, all things considered – that it was not unjustified for an all-powerful God to permit or create. There is some sense in which theism demands approval of suffering that surely wouldn’t be endorsed by the sufferer. This is a betrayal and an abandonment of those creatures. Theism asks too much of me. It asks me to betray every creature who ever suffered without reason.

>>>To affirm the truth of theism is to issue a moral judgment, not a merely descriptive one. Here’s a trivial example. Typically, to affirm the truth of theism means affirming the existence of a God who had the power to prevent evil, but who chose not to, for whatever reason. This would imply that the evil was not intrinsically impermissible, meaning it would be wrong always and everywhere to permit such an evil from occurring. Since God, if he exists, permitted the evil to occur, a theist must affirm that the evil act was not impermissible to allow. An atheist has the freedom to reject this, while the theist does not. The affirmation of theism cannot be totally divorced from all moral considerations.

>>>There is no escaping these kinds of moral judgments when one evaluates the truth or falsity of theism. Belief in God could never be a merely descriptive belief.

>>>The atheist asks, “What about the fawn in the forest?” “What about them?” the theist must answer. “In the end, the suffering of the fawn is not significant enough to count for much against the existence of a good God who had the power to prevent it.” How can this be purely descriptive judgment? No, it is a moral judgment as well. I would owe the fawn in the forest an apology if I were to become a believer. I would have to beg for her forgiveness.

>>>Theism’s demand: Either close your heart or close your eyes. Stop caring or stop looking. Those are my options when it comes to the suffering on earth. How could I live with myself, knowing that I’m doing one or both every moment I affirm the existence of God?

Theism´s demand