Peter Atterton, professor of philosophy at San Diego State University, recently wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times, detailing apparent logical inconsistencies in the idea of God. In this effort, he presents the same arguments that have been repeated ad nauseum by modern atheists – arguments that represent ignorance of the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
In his effort to disprove Christianity, he grapples with the basic question, “Does the idea of a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing God make sense? Does it hold together when we examine it logically?”
He begins by examining the idea of God’s omnipotence and the classic question, “Can God make a rock so big, he can’t lift it?” He notes that various philosophers have provided different and contradictory answers. Some have said that God cannot do that which is logically impossibly (thus, the answer is “No”), while others say that God can do the logically impossible (thus, the answer is “Yes”). Either way, God is proven to not be omnipotent, no matter the answer. This question, intended to entrap believers, misunderstands the very nature of God.
The answer to the question must be “No”, and yet, God’s omnipotence can still be preserved. God defines what is logical and what is not, therefore, the answer cannot be “Yes”. Further, God rules over his entire creation, so the creation of rock that he cannot lift, and therefore rule over, is impossible. Such a thing would be against his nature, which God cannot do. When we say that God is omnipotent, this does not mean that God can do every single action imaginable, as many of these things would contradict God’s nature (such as lying or breaking his promises). It means that God is able to do all things in keeping with his nature.
He then continues, asking whether God can create a world with no evil. If God is able and is morally perfect, why is the world the way it is? Why does evil exist? Why is so much suffering caused by natural disasters? Although he notes that the common response to the existence of moral evil is the need for human free will, the rhetorical nature of the question implies that an all-powerful, good God is incompatible with a world with evil and suffering.
As Christians, we know that God did create a world without evil and suffering, but in our rebellion, we brought sin into the world, which has led to natural disasters and human wickedness that have plagued our planet every day since Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Evil exists because we chose evil – not out of God’s inability or unwillingness to prevent it.
Additionally, the author makes a logical error in his argument. If there is no God, on what basis can he call natural disasters, war, famine, rape, murder, and all other evils “evil”? By what standard can he make that assumption? If we’re all just a product of the primordial ooze, then none of this is truly wrong. Stuff is just happening and nothing more. Only with God can he even have a basis for calling these things evil.
He then attacks the idea of God’s omniscience. He falsely equates the idea of knowing with experience – that for God to know lust and envy is for God to experience them himself. If this were to happen, this would make God a sinner, and therefore, he would not be morally perfect. This idea is false, as God is the law-giver, and therefore, lust and envy are only wrong because God has said that they are. God certainly has knowledge of what these things are in order to condemn them, but does not need to have engaged in the practices themselves.
This leads him to the conclusion that God cannot know what it is like to be human. He dismisses, for sake of argument, the theology behind Christ’s Incarnation, as it presents its own set of complications – whether Christ was fully human or not, whether he had to overcome sinful desires, and whether God can die – but it is in the Incarnation that the very answer he is looking for is found.
Although God certainly did not need to experience sin to know it, that is exactly what the Incarnate God-man came and did. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). On the cross, Jesus, the sinless Son of God, took on all the guilt and wrath of sin for all those who believe on him. Christ certainly did not need to experience sin in this way, but “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8b).
Not only do Atterton’s arguments fail to make any meaningful critique of Christianity, it misunderstands its core tenants. The god that Atterton critiques is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is a God who is fully able to do all that pleases him and is in keeping with his nature, not a god who can (and might) do everything that we might (il)logically conceive of – a god who might act on a whim if he’s having a bad day. The God of the Bible is a God who created man and the world good, but is allowing us to suffer the consequences of our sin. The God of the Bible is a God who, in his grace, did not want to leave us in our sin, but sent his Son to experience the guilt of his people, so that we might be reconciled to him. This is the God that Christians worship and calls men like Atterton to repent and believe in.