Episode 59 - Bad God

If you have ever said, or heard someone say, "I could never worship a god who..." then this episode is for you. God is often accused of being evil and malevolent, wiping out whole cultures and societies. But is this the God of the Bible? I think it is time to find out.

Watch this episodes for more discussions on this topic

Why Does God Allow Evil?

https://youtu.be/PXIg6Qs-aXc?si=KNSMV39-dwtczj84

"If God is all Powerful & Loving Why Do Evil Exist"?

https://youtu.be/eAlv83JJy4k?si=ElwfqteEAn9D8MYI

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction
• 3:49 I could never worship a god who...
• 12:21 Can God be evil?
• 21:21 The nature of good and evil.
• 26:54 Outro

Transcript

Bad God - Episode 59

Introduction

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” This famous trilemma of Epicurus, rephrased by David Hume in 1779, is touted as the unanswered question regarding the morality of God.

I was recently reading through Reddit and I stumbled across these comments: “God is way more evil than Satan in the Bible.” “If God exists, it is either incompetent, apathetic, evil, or non-existent. “ “The Christian God is an ignorant, evil, cruel, and sadistic monster.” “There is far more evidence that the Christian god is evil than there is that he is good.”

I wish I could say these comments are rare but they are very commonplace. The unanswered question is one which causes much division and haunts the intellect of any who would choose to examine the person of God. In light of these accusations how does a Christian respond? Is there any validity to these accusations? And, where did this notion come from? 

Often the fodder for Agnostics and Atheists, this philosophical mindset declares that if God exists at all, He is most certainly evil. I've used this quote before, but I think it fits well here. Stephen Fry has said, “Why didn't God create a universe where children are spared from the horror of cancer and suffering? He easily could have. The fact that He allows such atrocities proves that He is monstrous and unworthy of respect.”

You tell me God is bad?! I think such a statement deserves to be explored and its implications sussed out. Right now, if your position on God is that He is evil, are you questioning the emotional problem of evil or the intellectual problem of evil? I would argue that it’s time to take a better look at this issue! Perhaps we are being misled as to what the problem really is.

Today we are talking about the God of Christianity and Judaism being turned into an evil being, capable of atrocities which defy logic and seem to reflect an almost insane personality disorder. The God of Scripture seems to have the same traits that are used to describe the pantheistic gods of antiquity. But is this a true understanding of who God is?

How should Christians respond when they are challenged by these worldviews? Are there valid concerns behind these accusations? Where do these notions stem from? Let’s explore the complexity of understanding God in a modern context.

I Could Never Worship a God Who…

There are many ways that the character of God comes across in a manner that makes us question what the motivation was behind His actions. Very often we cannot reconcile them and it leads to a questioning of all we believe. When this happens we often hear the statement, “I could never believe in a god who…” When that statement comes from a person who has been raised and educated outside of the Christian tradition, it is easy to assume that their view of God is based on a flawed concept of truth. However, when these words come out of the mouth of someone who has been connected to the church, claiming a faith in God and expressing their desire to be Christ-like, then the challenge is to reason the steps which led them to this conclusion. 

In discussions about the character of God, many cite troubling Biblical stories, such as what we read in 2 Kings 2:23-24, “Now he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the road, some young boys came out from the city and ridiculed him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two of the boys.” Elisha seems to have overreacted here; and why would God use bears to kill 42 boys? This seems like an unhinged response to a little name calling.

When we read about the Israelites’ conquest of Canaan, we read that they were commanded to kill all inhabitants except for virgins. Deuteronomy 20:16-18, reads, “Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God.“ 

These narratives raise profound moral questions. Critics argue that a loving and just God would not condone such violence. This has led some to embrace dystheism, the belief that a god can be evil or morally imperfect. These stories are often seen as inconsistent with the nature of a benevolent deity, leading to skepticism about the moral framework of Scripture and the character of God.

When we read ancient texts like The Epic of Gilgamesh, we come across complementary a Near Eastern understanding of divine morality. It also contains stories of divine justice and retribution, and these often involve the gods punishing humanity for transgressions. These understandings are very often foreign to our western philosophical framework and it causes us to discredit ancient thought as mythological and antiquated.

Just as ancient people struggled with the idea of morality, we have not progressed in our contemplation of its role in society. In the TV series The Good Place, characters frequently grapple with moral philosophy and ethics, often questioning what constitutes a “good” action. Interestingly, the show highlights contemporary concerns about morality that parallel discussions about the moral implications of divine actions in Scripture.

What do you think about these stories? What are the moral implications of what we read in the Bible?

The practice of Dystheism challenges the traditional understanding of God’s goodness by suggesting that the divine may embody elements of evil. This perspective is increasingly popular among those who struggle with reconciling the God of the Bible with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. This philosophical stance forces believers to confront uncomfortable truths about their faith and the narratives they accept as sacred.

In his book “American Gods”, author and professor Neil Gaiman, portrays gods as reflecting human traits, including flaws and moral ambiguities. This suggests a contemporary understanding that aligns with dystheistic beliefs, presenting deities as deeply flawed beings rather than perfect moral arbiters. But his assertion stands in sharp contradiction to the Biblical claim that we are created in the image of God.

In the Book of Job, we are presented with a complex view of divine justice and suffering, exploring themes of human questioning of God's character. Job's struggle against perceived injustice from God serves as a counterpoint to blind acceptance of divine morality, resonating with modern dystheistic views. Eventually, Job acknowledges his limited understanding and repents for questioning God’s justice. His view of God transforms from one of confusion and frustration to awe and submission: In Job 42:2-3, he makes this statement, “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.”

In 2019, Barna Group Research indicated a significant portion of younger generations — especially those who have grown up in a postmodern context — find these biblical accounts to be major stumbling blocks to faith. According to the Barna Group survey, 67% of millennials reported they believe that the Bible is not the authoritative word of God, reflecting a growing skepticism among younger believers.[https://www.barna.com/research/millennials-and-the-bible-3-surprising-insights/]

These views are not new. In the writings of the Stoics, philosophers like Seneca, often challenged traditional views of the gods, arguing that if the gods were just, evil would not exist in the world. This philosophical stance is still found in contemporary discussions about Biblical morality.

In the documentary Hellbound? producer Kevin Miller explores the concept of hell and divine justice, showcasing diverse perspectives on morality. It highlights how modern viewers wrestle with traditional religious teachings and their implications for contemporary ethics.Does a good God send people to hell?

As philosopher and author Christopher Hitchens stated, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” This sentiment is echoed by many who encounter the complexities of divine justice in scripture, prompting them to reconsider the nature of God in light of biblical narratives.[Hitchens, God Is Not Great]

This brings us back again to the Epicurean Dilemma – if gods exist, they are indifferent to human affairs, aligning with critiques of divine morality found in modern discussions. But Philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that even though God is omnipotent, it is possible that it was not in his power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil; therefore, there is no logical inconsistency involved when God, although wholly good, creates a world of free creatures who choose to do evil.
[Peterson, Michael; Hasker, William; Reichenbach, Bruce; Basinger, David (1991). Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 130-133.]

I remember when the movie The Matrix was released. It started discussions about how Morpheus challenges Neo's understanding of reality. There is a similarity in Neo’s struggle with living in the matrix and how modern thinkers question the narratives about God and morality. The film's exploration of truth versus illusion resonates with the skepticism surrounding divine morality.

What do stories like The Matrix reveal about our understanding of good and evil?

Can God be evil?

It's very convenient to call God evil. It's very understandable that the stories we read in Scripture would cause us to react in various ways. But before we make choices to judge the character of God, we should discuss whether it is even possible for God to be evil. We should also discover what factors draw us to these conclusions in the first place. Are we emotionally repulsed by what we infer, or is it an intellectual response?

For half of my life, I have lived in parts of Canada where hunting is not only a lifestyle, but one way people provide for their families. For the other half of my life, I have lived in places where the thought of hunting “Bambi” evokes wildly aggressive emotions from the hoi polloi. But why does a singular act have such spectrally opposite responses? This isn't a question of ethics at all but rather a question of intention and necessity. No, if you live within walking distance of a butcher, then hunting does seem frivolous; but if the nearest store is three hours away, then hunting becomes a necessity. 

Is our view of the nature of God skewed and distorted in a way that cannot recognize the intention of God in what we are reading?

Let me ask this question: How is it possible to recognize goodness and badness? Existentialist thinkers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, emphasize individual freedom and responsibility. According to existentialism, there is no inherent meaning to goodness or badness in the universe; rather, individuals must create their own values through choices and actions. Goodness arises when one acts in accordance with their authentic self, and badness results from inauthenticity or acting in bad faith which is seen as denying one's freedom and responsibility.

Atheism argues that there is a randomness to life where life is seen as lacking intrinsic meaning or direction. Under this religious framework, the question of morality becomes one of human construction rather than an objective truth. So, the argument of good and evil is moot since your truth and my truth label good and evil to things which cannot coalesce. Goodness and badness do not exist in an objective sense but are concepts we invent to help us navigate social life.

On his podcast Ask N. T. Wright Anything, host Justin Brierley asks, can we identify evil? N. T. Wright answers by saying that, “We in the modern world, and actually people in the ancient world as well, don’t have good, accurate, language to describe evil and evil forces. There is a reason for that, that evil does not really belong in our world, and it’s an intruder, it’s an invader.”
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7cpHwvdujvyfNMn55WEAZW?si=B1ySI_j-Q42KVC1XO1LXuA%0A

In His book Evil and the Justice of God he attempts to give a description to evil when he writes, “Evil is the force of anti-creation, anti-life, the force which opposes and seeks to deface and destroy God's good world of space, time, and matter, and above all God's image-bearing human creatures.”
[Wright NT. Evil and the Justice of God. IVP Books; 2006.]

Professor Stephen Law has proposed the Evil God Argument, which states: “explain why an all-good God is more likely than an all-evil God”. In his own words, it is an evidential problem of evil that challenges the belief in a good God. This is an example of the intellectual evil propositions that are nurtured in our centers of learning everyday. A great follow-up question to the “can god create a rock too big to lift” debate, this argument is formulated to enact a circular reasoning fallacy so that either side is set up to failure.

In a recent post, Stephen Law furthered his argument with the following Statement, “These [cosmological and teleological] arguments provide no more support to belief in a good god than belief in an evil god. So, given belief in an evil god is absurd, why should we suppose belief in a good god is more reasonable, notwithstanding the cosmological and teleological arguments?”

In response William Lane Craig has stated, “Suppose we concede for the sake of argument that an evil Creator/Designer exists. Since this being is evil, that implies that he fails to discharge his moral obligations. But where do those come from? How can this evil god have duties to perform which he is violating? Who forbids him to do the wrong things that he does? Immediately, we see that such an evil being cannot be supreme: there must be a being who is even higher than this evil god and is the source of the moral obligations which he chooses to flout, a being which is absolute goodness Himself. In other words, if Stephen Law’s evil god exists, then God exists.”

I would simply ask, wouldn't God's creation reflect his nature?In a debate with Stephen Law, Philosopher Jack Symes has declared the evil God challenge is dead.He has even written a book titled, Defeating the Evil-God Challenge: In Defence of God’s Goodness. In his preface he says, “it is more reasonable to attribute goodness to god than it is to attribute evil to god, and therefore, we have reason to favor belief in a good god over evil god.”
[Symes, J. (2024). Defeating the Evil-God Challenge: In Defence of God’s Goodness. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing.]

It is the preponderance of emotional evil attributed to God which we hear most often. It is from this platform that we hear the arguments bringing up the evil acts of God in Scripture, the plethora of quotes from celebrities, newsmakers, influencers, and social media darlings. If recent events in the United States Elections have taught us anything, it is that if you have nothing, at least you can attempt to rile up another's emotions through any means necessary. Emotional manipulation destroys trust, understanding, and respect. But most importantly there is no need for context, investigation, or truth in this attack on God and those who believe in Him

Would an evil God create a good world? In Pensée 425, Blaise Pascal wrote: "The God of the Christians is a God of love and comfort, and is not a God of the philosophers and the wise." This reflects Pascal’s view that the God of Christian faith is not simply an intellectual or abstract deity, but a God who is intimately involved with the world and with human beings. He strongly criticizes philosophical or abstract conceptions of God and insists that Christianity offers a more personal, relational understanding of God — a God who is both transcendent and immanent, revealing Himself to humanity in specific ways. And one thing which is instantly observable is that there is goodness in God.

Contrary to the gospel of Disney, good and evil are not equal, good does not cancel out evil like weights on a scale. How do we know this, how do you give value to something which is philosophically nonexistent? Evil is defined as the absence of good, just as dark is the absence of light. And yet, we attempt to attribute goodness and badness based on our own understanding and that is where the argument for an evil God fails. An evil god cannot exist, the absence of something is a void; it lacks substance and definition without the existence of what it isn't. It is more reasonable to attribute goodness to the Judeo-Christian God, and evil to all the competing gods.

The ancient practice of Manichaeism muddles the waters of thought when it comes to this topic. Believing that God has an eternal opposing power in the devil, this teaching denies the omnipotence of God and postulates a dualistic nature to good and evil. Man’s soul is the battleground of these two forces, represented by light and darkness, respectively. But, what is the nature of good and evil?

The Nature of good and Evil

To answer the Epicurean Dilemma we look at four points repeated in Scripture which reflect the nature of God. 
• God is omnipotent (able to prevent evil). 
• God is good (not willing to allow evil unnecessarily). 
•Evil exists due to free will, this is the reality of human choice, and the temporary role suffering plays in God's redemptive plan.
• God’s ultimate purpose is the defeat of evil through the cross of Christ, with the promise of a new creation where evil, sin, and death will no longer exist.

William Lane Craig has articulated that while God allows for the existence of evil, He does not engage in evil acts Himself. This distinction is crucial for understanding the nature of divine justice. According to Craig, God's omniscience and omnipotence do not imply that He actively wills evil; rather, He permits free will in His creation, which can lead to evil actions by human beings. This theological perspective offers a framework for reconciling the existence of evil with the belief in a good God.[https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-god-able-to-do-evil]

In response to criticism regarding God’s allowing evil to exist, William Lane Craig argues that, “the Scriptures teach that we are to give thanks in all circumstances, but not necessarily for all circumstances. In particular, we don’t thank God for and rejoice at sin. We’re glad that in His providence God can bring some good out of Hitler’s sinful acts, but neither we nor God is glad at Hitler’s evil. In the case of natural evil, like our parents’ diseases, we can be relieved that God can bring some good out of what they suffered, but it doesn’t follow that we are glad that they suffered.”
[https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-problem-of-evil-once-more]

When addressing accusations of divine genocide, it is essential to examine the historical and cultural context of these biblical events. Critics often cite instances where God commanded the destruction of entire populations (e.g., the Canaanites), interpreting these as examples of divine cruelty. However, a closer look reveals that these narratives often serve a broader purpose in the context of God’s redemptive plan, highlighting themes of justice and divine judgment rather than mere capriciousness. Michael Heiser defends the actions of God by saying, “it is a fallacy to say that the conquest recorded in the Old Testament was only about taking life.”

To that end, Frank Turek has pointed out that for us to get angry at God for the death of someone is to ignore the fact that all of creation dies at the hand of God. The creator and sustainer of life gives life and takes life, so why do we question the manner in which this happens?[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKh2Fd3RpEI]

Many interpretations of Biblical violence stem from a lack of understanding of the historical context. Scholars suggest that these narratives are meant to illustrate the consequences of sin and the seriousness of rebellion against God. This perspective shifts the focus from a seemingly arbitrary deity to a God who is deeply concerned about moral order and justice. Author John Walton, in his book The Lost World of the Flood, discusses ancient Near Eastern literature and its implications for understanding the Biblical flood narrative where God chose to destroy creation; saving only a handful of people. Christopher Wright, in his book The God I Don’t Understand, addresses the issues of violence in the Old Testament and the character of God.

The Histories by Herodotus demonstrates that ancient peoples often interpreted divine actions as reflective of their moral codes. Even fictional work like the film The Book of Eli examines faith and morality, prompting viewers to question how Scriptures can be interpreted and misinterpreted in various contexts. This mirrors the importance of historical understanding in Biblical exegesis.

“God's ways are not our ways, and His purposes often transcend human understanding,” from Isaiah 55:8-9 emphasizes the need for humility in approaching difficult theological questions. This encourages believers to trust in God’s character and overarching plans, even when specific events challenge their understanding.

Theologian A. W. Pink commented on this verse in Isaiah, saying, "God’s ways are far beyond our comprehension, and we are to be content in acknowledging that His wisdom transcends ours. Our finite minds are incapable of fully understanding the infinite mind of God. This should lead us not to questioning His methods, but to worshiping His supremacy."
[A. W. Pink, The Attributes of God, p. 36]

Likewise D. A. Carson is quoted as saying, "This text is a reminder that, even when we cannot understand God's ways or see their outcome, we can trust that His thoughts and ways are far better than our own. The passage teaches us that faith in God's sovereignty is necessary, especially when faced with suffering or confusion. We are not meant to understand all things, but to trust in the one who understands them all."[D. A. Carson, For the Love of God, Volume 1, p. 174]

Outro

In what ways can we reconcile the existence of evil with our understanding of God? Is the decision to label God as evil an emotional fallacy encouraged by our desire to do what we want? Do children see their parents as evil because the actions of the parents, although done to protect and nurture, make the child angry? If you say that you could never worship a god who acts like the God of the Bible, I would challenge you to look again; ask more questions, and be willing to examine the context of those stories which bother you the most.

God doesn't hang around to satiate our desires, He doesn’t follow trends, or have a DEI policy. And if this describes the god you would want to worship, then the god you are wanting to is yourself.

God does not lie, He doesn’t change, He doesn’t break promises, His intentions and power cannot be thwarted or stopped. His church cannot be destroyed, His Word is never broken, His laws are never annulled, He cannot be pleased without faith, He cannot be worshiped too much, God cannot despise a contrite or broken heart, He can never stop loving you, And God cannot sin.

In preparation for this episode I asked my kids, “is God good?” They answered, “Yes!” Rather emphatically. Then I asked, “How do you know that?” The response, “Because He loves me.”

God is good, and if you've never heard it before, God loves you.