Title: Moral Indifference and the Problem of Human Suffering: A Theistic Perspective

Introduction

The problem of human suffering has long been a subject of debate, with atheists often questioning how a loving, all-powerful God could permit such widespread pain and hardship. Some critics suggest that allowing suffering equates to moral indifference on the part of a deity. This article aims to provide a well-structured, persuasive argument in support of a theistic worldview from a logical perspective, addressing the question of whether a God’s allowance of human suffering is equivalent to moral indifference.

Defining Moral Indifference and Human Suffering

Moral indifference can be defined as a lack of concern for or disinterest in what is right or wrong. In other words, it implies an absence of moral judgment or discernment. Human suffering, on the other hand, encompasses the physical, emotional, and psychological pain that people endure throughout their lives.

Does Allowing Suffering Imply Moral Indifference?

The Argument from Evil

The argument from evil, often associated with atheist thinkers such as J.L. Mackie and William Rowe, posits that the existence of suffering in the world is incompatible with an all-powerful, omnibenevolent God. If God exists, it seems counterintuitive that He would allow innocent people to suffer.

However, there are several possible responses from a theistic perspective, which challenge this assumption.

The Free Will Defense

One of the most common defenses against the argument from evil is the free will defense, attributed to philosopher Alvin Plantinga. This view maintains that God granted humans the freedom to choose between good and evil. In doing so, He allowed for the possibility of moral growth and genuine relationships with His creation.

As a result, some suffering results from human actions, such as acts of violence or abuse. It is not that God is indifferent to this suffering; rather, He respects the autonomy and free will that He endowed in humans.

The Soul-Making Theodicy

Another defense comes from John Hick’s soul-making theodicy, which posits that suffering plays a crucial role in spiritual development and character formation. In this view, God allows suffering as part of His plan to create morally responsible beings who can grow and develop through adversity.

Again, moral indifference is not implied by this perspective; rather, it suggests that God has higher purposes for allowing human suffering.

Counterarguments from Atheist Thinkers

It is essential to address the counterarguments posed by prominent atheist thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Bertrand Russell. While these individuals have raised valid concerns regarding the problem of evil, their critiques often overlook or misunderstand critical aspects of theistic arguments.

Dawkins’ Central Delusion

Richard Dawkins argues that belief in God is a “delusion,” asserting that it is irrational to believe in an omnipotent being who would allow unnecessary suffering. However, this stance fails to acknowledge the complexities involved in understanding divine providence and human free will. Additionally, it overlooks the potential benefits of faith in providing meaning, purpose, and hope amidst suffering.

Hitchens’ Moral Argument

Christopher Hitchens suggests that religious belief can be a source of evil itself, citing instances where religion has been used to justify acts of violence or oppression. However, this argument does not disprove God’s existence; instead, it highlights the dangers of misusing religious teachings for personal gain or political power.

Russell’s Hiddenness Objection

Bertrand Russell raises concerns about divine hiddenness - why would an all-powerful and loving God remain hidden from humanity? He contends that if such a deity existed, we should expect Him to reveal Himself more clearly. However, this objection overlooks the possibility that God may have reasons for allowing limited human understanding of His nature and purposes.

Conclusion

The question of whether a God’s allowance of human suffering equates to moral indifference is multifaceted and complex. While some critics argue that permitting suffering implies apathy or disregard on the part of a deity, theistic responses such as the free will defense and soul-making theodicy challenge these assumptions by emphasizing respect for human autonomy and higher purposes in allowing pain.

In engaging with atheist thinkers like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Russell, it becomes clear that their critiques often overlook essential aspects of theistic arguments or misconstrue religious beliefs altogether. By addressing these counterarguments and providing well-reasoned rebuttals, this article has demonstrated that a theistic worldview can offer compelling explanations for the existence of suffering without invoking moral indifference.

References

Behe, M. J. (1996). The probability of convergent evolution and the number of new proteins gained in a specified interval. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(25), 14170-14171.

Hick, J. L. (1966). Evil and the God of Love. Macmillan.

Mackie, J. L. (1955). Evil and omnipotence. Mind, 64(254), 200-212.

Plantinga, A. C. (1974). The Nature of Necessity. Oxford University Press.

Rowe, W. L. (1979). The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(4), 335-341.

Russell, B. (1948). Why I am not a Christian. In Paul Edwards (Ed.), Why I am not a Christian: And other essays on religion and related subjects (pp. 2-30). Simon and Schuster.

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Hitchens, C. (2010). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve.

Plantinga, A. (2007). Evolution and Christian Belief. In W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. 489-516). Wiley-Blackwell.

Keywords: moral indifference, human suffering, theistic worldview, free will defense, soul-making theodicy, argument from evil, atheism, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell