Seabury NeuCollins

Intro to Philosophy
October 4, 2009

The Big and Blurry Picture

A perspective on B C. Johnsons Why Doesnt God Intervene to Prevent Evil?

In B.C Johnsons essay entitled Why Doesnt God Intervene to Prevent Evil?,
he presents many arguments against the existence of a god which is omniscient,
omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but these arguments rely on implicit assumptions which
the existence of a Christian god would make either false or indeterminate. The chief
factor in the negation of these assumptions is the introduction of unknowable context,
implied by the existence of god, which makes it impossible to determine whether all of
the occurrences in our universe are consistent with an omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent Christian god. Among these assumptions are that suffering is evil, that if
we do not know why suffering is somehow necessary, it is somehow wrong, that killing
and maiming innocents will always lead to a bad result, and that a difference between our
morality and gods morality would make Gods morality meaningless to us. It is hard to
justify these assumptions when the big picture from which these assumptions are birthed
is made blurry by the existence of God.
Let us consider, as B.C. Johnson did, the example of a baby burned to death in a
fire. B.C. Johnson first criticizes the Christian defense that the baby will go to heaven
anyways, arguing that it was either necessary for the baby to suffer or it was not, and
that if not, it was wrong to allow, and if it was necessary, the babys ascent to heaven
doesnt explain why and we are left without an excuse for gods action or lack thereof.
Lets consider the assumptions behind the argument. First and foremost is the assumption

that suffering is evil unless it is necessary. Second is the assumption that if we do not
know why the suffering is necessary, that it is somehow wrong.
Starting with the first assumption, one must ask why suffering is evil. Without
considering god, it could be argued that inflicting pain on someone is an unfair intrusion
onto their happiness which all humans have an intrinsic right to pursue. It certainly isnt a
seal proof argument, but accepting it for now, it can be shown that the introduction of a
Christian or Christian-like god significantly changes it. Once God is introduced, then it
probably follows that God had a purpose in creating the human race, and that purpose
wasnt so that we could all pursue happiness. Even if we were to accept that the right to
the pursuit of happiness is absolute, god has not violated that right with the imposition of
suffering since even if one suffers, that does not prevent him from pursuing that ultimate
happiness which is heaven.
A more significant corollary to the introduction of a Christian god is that in
Christian doctrine, god defines good and evil, being the creator of the universe. God does
not define suffering as evil, but often it is a necessity to achieve salvation. A great
example of this is the story of Abraham and Issac, where god ordered Abraham to
sacrifice his first born son, causing great internal suffering and agony for Abraham, but
for his suffering and agony, he passed a test of faith and would later be given to heaven.
The suffering of being ordered to kill his own son was one step towards salvation.
The second assumption behind B. C. Johnsons argument is that since we do not
have an excuse for gods behavior, we can somehow conclude that god is not of a wholly
benevolent nature. Although the precise wording of his argument doesnt state this
assumption, B. C. Johnson concludes at the end of the essay that god is not wholly

benevolent, and doesnt return to the point before then, so for his argument to be valid,
this assumption must be made. However, if it isnt immediately clear how this argument
is spurious, consider this example. A citizen is walking down the street when he sees a
scruffy man grab a meek businessman and throw him through a shop window and jump
in after him. The citizen would logically conclude that the scruffy man was behaving
malevolently. The citizen has no excuse for his the scruffy mans actions after all.
However, what the citizen did not know was that the mafia had a hit out for the meek
businessman and the scruffy man knew that they were planning a drive-by at the place
where the businessman was walking. Sure enough, a black limo drove past right
afterwards filled with mafia members, who, not seeing the businessman, continued on
their way. The scruffy man was actually a hero and saved the businessmans life. The
logic of B. C. Johnson is the logic of the citizen, that if we do not have a reason for his
seemingly malevolent actions, the actions must in fact be malevolent.
Let us move on to B. C. Johnsons second argument. B. C. Johnson claims that it
is not a fair argument that the babys painful death in the fire will have good results in the
long run or else god wouldnt permit it, because if that were the case every action in the
end would be good and we could thus kill and maim as we please and that would actually
be our duty. Ignoring for now the big thorn in this arguments side that is free will, lets
analyze an assumption underlying this argument.
One assumption is that killing and maiming would necessarily be bad in the long
run. If we were to kill and maim as we please, and it were actually beneficial in the long
run, then clearly this assumption would be wrong. If we were to ignore free will and
assume the omnipotence of god, it would not be unreasonable to assume that killing and

maiming as we please would actually be beneficial, seeing as god would have to arrange
it to be so. All we can know is that we dont understand how it is beneficial, but it would
have to be according to the nature of god, unless it was actually impossible. One way god
could achieve this is by making events so that the people killed have already been
determined to go to heaven and thus actually benefiting them, whereas god would have
somehow intervened in the cases of people not yet fit for judgment and given them more
time to repent their sins. God could also make it so that the maimed people were actually
people who if they werent maimed would have in the future done far worse deeds.
Unless we can know for sure that an action wasnt beneficial in the long run, we cant
claim there is a contradiction between the events and the omnibenevolance of god. Alas,
we can not know such a thing for sure, for the existence of a Christian god implies that
there are realms of existence that we do not know, such as heaven and hell. Since the
goodness of an action is often revealed in the information that we do not know, such as
with the example of the businessman and the mafia, it is impossible to tell whether an
action was beneficial in the long run or not, and therefore it is impossible to tell from this
angle of investigation whether or not god is omnibenevolent.
Of course, one other flaw in his argument is that god has given us free will so if
evil were to be incurred by the maiming of innocents, then it would be evil at the hands
of humans, not at the hands of God. B. C. Johnson counters this argument by presenting
an analogy of a human who didnt start a fire (another human did), and did not save a
child burning in the fire even though he could have done so perfectly safely. This man
would not be seen as good or virtuous. This analogy doesnt fit though because God
could not break free will just to save a person from another. If god did this, then what

purpose would our existence be? We would be nothing more than preprogrammed
machines, mechanically prevented from committing harm to others. Such an existence is
very undesirable, and clearly allowing death and suffering (which is trivial compared to
the eternal existence in heaven or hell) is a price worth paying for free will.
One more argument B. C. Johnson presents is that if god has higher morality then
man and doesnt need to abide by the same rules as us, that such a morality would be the
opposite of ours and have no meaning to us. Of course, it is hyperbole that Gods
morality is the opposite of ours. Just because sometimes what happens shows God acting
in a way that opposes our morals, doesnt mean this happens in every case, or even in a
majority of the cases. However, this doesnt affect the point B. C. Johnson makes that the
moral standards of God seem different to us, and this makes them meaningless.
The thing is, the moral standards of God will clearly be different from ours,
considering the circumstances. Just because they are different doesnt mean they are
meaningless. It is perfectly acceptable for God to kill someone seeing as he created death,
he created us, he created the earth on which we live, he created the heaven and hell we
may go to after life, and he is the judge of our what happens to us after death. Perhaps the
more important question is why it is wrong for us to kill each other.
Consider for example the possibility that the reason murder is considered evil as
outlined in the bible is because it interferes with Gods work in fairly judging each person
and giving them a chance to repent their sins. In this scenario Gods morals arent
meaningless to ours despite their being different to ours. God causes death, but that
doesnt mean that he is evil.

The commonality in the arguments presented thus far by B. C. Johnson is an

application of standards based on the assumption of there being no God to judging God,
but failing to realize that the existence of God would change those standards. In the story
of the businessman and the scruffy man, the citizen walking down the street was unable
to know the circumstances surrounding the scene and therefore couldnt accurately judge
the scene. Likewise, the existence of God would imply the existence of many
circumstances surrounding our existence that we do not know, and thus we are unable to
judge God. B. C. Johnsons arguments fail to address the big picture, one example being
in his story of the baby burning in a building when he solely focuses on the suffering the
baby endures without looking at what makes suffering good or evil. Part of the reason
many of his arguments fail to see the big picture is because it is impossible to see this big
picture. We humans have no knowledge of heaven or hell, we do not know the motives of
God, and we dont even know for sure how morality applies to God.
A case that seems clear cut when looking at it without the increased context
implied by the existence of a Christian god becomes a much more difficult case. It goes
from looking at a small and clear picture to a big and blurry picture. The arguments made
by B. C. Johnson are all negated by the introduction of unknowable context, and that is
why his criticisms fail to prove that the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence
of god is in contradiction to the suffering and death of a baby burning in a house.