Over on Triablogue, Steve Hays just responded to a few arguments that John Loftus has made, if the meaning of “arguments” can be twisted enough to apply. Steve’s posts can be found here, here, and here. Steve’s posts also contain links back to Loftus’s original posts too, if you wish to read them in context. I’m not going to quote from them because the purpose of my own blog post isn’t to interact with John Loftus, but merely to use him as a springboard.
The gist of the argument being employed is that it is possible for an atheist to hypothetically present a universe that is better than the universe that God created. This would then, supposedly, be proof that God did not create the best possible universe; which would then (again supposedly) cast doubt upon God’s omnipotence, His benevolence, or both.
There is a major problem with arguing from the hypothetical. It presupposes an objective standard that both the one hypothesizing the hypothetical and God Himself must both adhere to. In other words, if you say, “My hypothetical world, H, is better than God’s real world, R”, the use of the term “better” implies some standard by which H and R can be compared.
Obviously, the question must be asked: what is this standard? Where did it come from? Who established it? Why must both parties be subject to this standard?
The atheist cannot answer these questions, although he will certainly make some attempts. For instance, an atheist could argue that the standard is the hypothetical standard of perfection.
But this falls prey to the same fallacy. How is perfection defined? What establishes whether something is perfect or flawed? This is easily demonstrated in two fields: art and science. In the arts, what constitutes the perfect artwork? Ask 20 people, you’ll get 30 answers. Artworks is judged as to its perfection subjectively.
Science doesn’t fare much better. How do we know in science if something is perfect? If it functions toward a specific purpose. But what is that purpose? Even taking God out of the picture for a moment, in evolution we know that the purpose of species are to produce offspring and to perpetuate themselves. Perfection in biology would be the continual profligation of a species. Thus, the species is moving toward a pre-established goal. In other words, a standard that is set up.
But that standard is, of course, one that is put in place by the scientific thinkers. In both art and science, one is left with a subjective idea of what constitutes perfection.
If this is true for us as humans, why does it suddenly become impossible if the subject is God instead of man? If God designes something toward a specific end, or simply because He enjoys it, why is that an insufficient reason for Him to act and create as He does?
Finally, the most obvious rejoinder (which is why I’m saving it until the end–it’s so obvious it’s easy to miss it): Christianity doesn’t claim that the world in its present state is perfect! There is this thing called “sin.” Christianity does not proclaim that sin is good. Sin is used by God toward a good end, yes; but it is not itself good. There is evil and imperfection in this world as it currently exists. This is a given for the Christian worldview. As such, it hardly makes a dent in the armor of Christian theism to point out that the world “could be” better than it is.
In fact, one day it will be better. One day, God will exercize His justice as well as His mercy and bring all things toward their appointed end. In short, Creation will achieve it’s designed state (which employs the scientific meaning of perfection) and God will be glorified for it (which employs the artistic meaning of perfection). That we are not yet at the end of the journey is no argument against the existence of the journey itself.
