Letter from Australia 125 – Debating Suffering with Stephen Law on Unbelievable…some feedback!

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Last week after many years absence I returned to Unbelievable.  I wish I hadn’t.   I was asked to debate Stephen Law of the University of Oxford on the ‘problem of suffering’- moderated by Andy Kind.   I have written and spoken about this subject many times (i.e. – https://theweeflea.com/2016/02/28/apologetics-101-no-6-how-can-we-believe-in-a-god-who-allows-evil-and-suffering/and the more I go on – the more I realise that the problem of evil and suffering is actually a far greater problem for the atheist than the Christian.  To put it in a nutshell the atheist cannot define evil and has no solution for suffering.  The Christian can define evil, and we do have a solution for suffering.

The debate itself was ok – you can watch it for yourself here.   I felt that it didn’t help to let Stephen bring up numerous points at one time.  We should have dealt with each one – one by one.

Of course I didn’t speak as well as I could have, there were things I wish I had said, and a couple I wish I hadn’t – but that is the nature of live, unscripted and real debate.But what got me as always was the abuse afterwards.  This gets divided into two categories – the mocking, sneering, atheists who know that their guy won and that I am an obvious idiot – and then the Christians who always accuse me of not being nice, or being too rude or too stupid to answer the questions – (I notice that  in passing that there some to be some, including Christians, who have an unhealthy obsession with me and follow much of what I do – always posting comments as ‘impartial’ observers – always personally attacking.  For example, one man wrote on the Premier live chat that he asked ChatGPT about David Robertson and got the reply “Oh, David Robertson, the king of smug apologetics.   He was lying.  If you type ‘David Robertson, Scottish Apologist’ you get a factual summary of my work. I actually asked ChatGPT about the possibility of this being a true account of their answer and they replied that ChatGPT would never write in such disrespectful terms about anyone!)

The main objection seems to have been that I didn’t answer the question – so – being a natural self-doubter, I thought maybe that was right and so did something I hate doing – I watched the whole debate!   What if they were right?   Watch it for yourself and make up your own mind…

The following is my totally objective analysis – balanced between the desire to be right and the self-loathing that some of us have when we see ourselves as others see us!

My habit in debates is to actually listen to what people say and then respond to each point.  That is why you will often see me scribbling away on my notepad!    In this case I attempted to answer the numerous points and accusations made by Stephen.  Just to list them  – childhood mortality rate, unnecessary suffering, atheist good works, internet memes, the problem of suffering for the atheist, God permitting evil, the moral argument, bringing good out of evil, the spectacular argument for the goodness of God, God ‘torturing kids pointlessly’, the moral panic in society, the obviousness of the non-existence of God,  the evil God argument, who is the real spell breaker, the symmetry of the good God, evil God argument, the moral argument for God, sceptical theism, the age of the universe, atheists suppressing the truth, the goodness of God, the evil within humanity,

So why are my critics saying that that I didn’t answer the question?   They could mean that they did not think I answered the question well enough – which would be a fair point.  If that were the case, it is up to them to show where my arguments were weak or wrong.   But they don’t do that.  They just simply state it as a fact that I did not answer.   It’s a neat psychological trick, which works well when people indulge in groupthink.   When my atheist critics say I didn’t answer the question – it’s a way of them avoiding the actual arguments.  They don’t engage with the arguments – they just say that there are none.

In terms of the rudeness, I now think that I was far too polite.  Why?

Stephen’s mockery of Christians was one thing (we are all suckers who need to take the red pill of his ‘spell breaker’ argument), but his mockery of God was blasphemous.  To call God a child torturer is horrendous.  And yet Christians say you need to be polite, nod along, and tell him what a good point he is making.  Except it isn’t.  It’s a best an ignorant statement, at worst a blasphemous lie from the pit.

I did call him out a couple of times on the cheap, snide points that he made.  I.e. that the ‘evil proves God’ card was just an internet meme (as opposed one assumes to a real philosopher like him).  Or that theists seek to make confusion in order to hide their weak arguments.  But then Stephen does not understand our arguments.  For example, you would think that a sophisticated philosopher such as himself, who has spent his career studying this question would not make the basic error of stating that in Christianity God does not permit evil.  He does.  He does not do evil.  And he hates evil. But sometimes he permits it.  Hence my Augustine quote – that God is so great that he can even bring good out of evil.   And God does not deceive us.  It is the devil who is the Father of lies.  God is light – and truth.

One of the key weaknesses of atheists with Stephen’s philosophy is their inability to tell us what good and evil is.  But for Stephen that doesn’t matter because all he is trying to do is attack the apparent inconsistencies of Christianity.   And here the arrogance is breathtaking.  For these atheist fundamentalists anyone with eyes to see will know that it is obviously ludicrous to believe in God.  He thinks his evil God argument is a spell breaker, because we are all spell bound.  We are all suckers for believing in God.    It’s strange how I was accused of being rude for questioning his reliance on ‘academic religious philosophers’, whilst his calling Christians spell bound, ignorant suckers is apparently the heart of enlightened, rational, debate!   Arrogance caused by the realisation of your own brilliance, also tends to go along with a suspect recall of events.  According to someone who was there Stephen’s memory of the William Lane Craig debate was defective – Craig did not drop the moral argument because of Stephen Law’s brilliance!

As regards the self-styled experts; when they agree with Stephen they are ‘sophisticated religious philosophers’, whereas yours truly is clearly from the fundamentalist, redneck, tribe!   Hence his question about the age of the earth….

In terms of the moral argument – which he largely dismissed as not being accepted by the ‘experts’, Stephen admitted that he himself could be a moral nihilist. In other words, any morality, any concept of good and evil, is just a human construct.  That leads to Hell on earth.  Why?  Because what is constructed only by humans, can be deconstructed by those same humans.  Black can be white.  Murder can be mercy.  Rape can be Love. Love can be hate. How sad that Stephen spends his time arguing against a God he does not believe in, on the basis of suffering, whilst he himself espouses a philosophy which not only does nothing about the suffering in the world, but threatens to multiply it.

Stephen relied a lot on feeling.  His feeling that some things were just obvious.  His feeling that because he could think of no good explanation, that there could be none.  His feeling that all animal suffering must be pointless.  I wish I had made the argument that was in my head – but I was trying to be polite.  What argument?   Imagine not believing in God because he gives you steak!

There were a few things I wish I had said apart from steak proving the goodness of God!  Given his interest in child mortality, I wonder how Stephen would justify humans killing millions of their own babies every year?  As for atheists doing good – I pointed out in the debate that we are not disputing that.  However, I should have asked about the atheist schools, hospitals etc – and for that matter atheist musicians and artists.   And how have the attempts to create atheist societies in the 29^th century worked out.  Atheists can relieve some suffering because they are humans made in the image of God.  But atheist philosophy will only ultimately lead to more suffering.   You can’t have the fruit without the root.

I think in summary I would put it this way.  For Stephen this is clearly an academic problem to be discussed by academic philosophers.  For me it is a question of reality – and of life and death.   That is why I am passionate about it…it isn’t about philosophical discussion – it’s about real life and real people.  And most of all it isn’t about me – who cares if I won or lost the debate?  My concern must be with the glory of the God who is of purer eyes than to behold sin and evil.  The God who so loved the world that he gave his Son to save that world.   If I let Him down, then I am devastated.  May the Lord overrule.

Yours in Christ

David

PS – since I mentioned AI here is an AI summary of the debate (with the caveat – never absolutely trust AI!

 David Robertson excelled in presenting a coherent, emotionally resonant defence of theism, leveraging Christian theology and his pastoral experience. However, his arguments may have been less effective for those demanding philosophical rigor or sceptical of religious assumptions.

 Stephen Law brought intellectual precision and a powerful critique of theism through the evidential problem of evil and the “evil God” hypothesis. However, his abstract approach and lack of a positive secular alternative might have limited his appeal to a broader audience.

Michael Shermer v. David Robertson – Unbelievable