in my recent response to Ben Shapiro's
video about atheism I let one of his
points slide listen there's no way to
blame people who don't believe in God
because they've experienced enormous
amounts of personal pain God is apart
from human beings and if we understood
the mind of God then we would be like
God in his totality which we are not if
we understood the mind of God then we
would be like God in his totality which
we are not
this point probably doesn't strike you
as particularly special or powerful but
I think it is in fact I think it's one
of the most powerful responses one can
give to those questioning their God I
would have included it in my Arguments
for God's existence tier list but it's
not exactly a formal argument for the
existence of God it's more of an
all-purpose defense of one's specific
theology it's versatile enough that a
variety of Faith Traditions can use it
Ben Shapiro practices Judaism and he
used it but Christian apologists can use
it too here's Catholic bishop Robert
Barron using it in response to the idea
that there's no good explanation for why
a good just God would allow the level of
suffering humans and other animals have
experienced if we're talking about not
one contingent cause among many so
someone who might be ordering things in
one corner of his of the universe but of
God ipsum essay the creator of all
things who's who's
um preserve is all of space and all of
time is it at all likely that we're
going to see
the the full implications of whatever is
happening the full implications across
space and time of what's being permitted
and the answer there's obviously no and
I think now go back to the Book of Job
as the is the classic biblical answer in
in the presence of great evil great
suffering is we we don't know what God
is up to and we're in no position now
I'd put that back on Alex we're in no
position to say
definitively there is no morally
justifiable reason for this particular
evil because we need
a god-like perspective on all of space
and all of time in order to make that
claim and that's the import of of God's
speech to job the longest speech of God
anywhere in the Bible where were you
when I made the you know the the heavens
and the Earth Etc but it just means
you're in no position
to pronounce or to articulate that
premise that you have clear knowledge
there can't be a morally justifiable
reason for a given suffering arguably
the world's top Protestant Christian
apologist William Lane Craig regularly
makes this point as well here's a clip
of him speaking on the problem of evil
all the way back in the year 2000. The
Atheist seems to think that if God has
morally sufficient reasons for
permitting the evils that occur these
reasons must be evident to us but
there's absolutely no grounds for that
assumption on the contrary given our
limits in time and space intelligence
and insight we shouldn't expect to see
the reasons why God permits every evil
take for example our being historically
limited evils which might appear
gratuitous within our limited frame of
reference might be seen to be justly
permitted within God's wider frame of
reference all three examples I've
provided here have been responses to the
problems of evil or suffering but this
point can be made in response to
countless other objections to
theological claims if I show some
apparent contradiction in scripture and
say that such a contradiction doesn't
point to Divine authorship one could
retort well who are you to say that God
didn't have a sufficient reason to
inspire the text to be written that way
given our cognitive and even temporal
limitations we shouldn't expect to see
or understand why God inspired the text
to be written in a specific way for all
we know by God's standards this could
not be a contradiction at all or some
Factor we're unaware of could justify a
contradiction being divinely inspired
likewise if I point to some part of
nature which seems poorly designed like
an inefficient metabolic cycle or an
organ prone to failure and say it
doesn't fit with the idea of a perfect
intelligent designer one could respond
how can you say that's poor design you'd
have to have the perspective of a
perfect intelligent designer in order to
prove that design isn't perfect those
things could be designed in a way that
is perfect from a higher perspective but
we humans don't have access to that
perspective if a perfect intelligent
designer exists we should expect to see
things in nature which we struggle to
see as perfectly designed I'm sure you
get the idea this point can handle
basically any objection to any theology
which invokes an omnipotent or at least
sufficiently Transcendent God its
versatility is unmatched and it is true
if a god is so transcendently powerful
and intelligent we humans and our
limitations probably wouldn't be able to
understand Its Behavior much of the time
so that's it right Believers in this God
are correct and non-believers are
without excuse case closed well
not quite this Point's versatility is a
strength but it's also a major weakness
while it can serve as a defense of God's
goodness Perfection intelligence or any
other quality one might want to
attribute to their God it can also work
in the opposite direction God is good he
doesn't cause gratuitous evil but rather
creates goodness out of evil such that
he's morally Justified for allowing evil
to exist
um no God is the most evil being
possible he actually creates the
greatest possible evil out of good in
order to prove he doesn't you'd have to
have a Godlike perspective which you
don't have if a maximally evil God
exists we should expect to see things
which we struggle to understand as evil
because we humans are limited yeah this
argument works just as well in defending
the idea of a god with any and all
undesirable characteristics as it does
in defending the idea of a god with
desirable ones as long as the God is
defined as Transcendent and to exist
Beyond Humanity's cognitive limits this
argument Works regardless of theology
that is however only if you use it only
as needed rather than consistently
across your entire theological system
applied consistently this line of
reasoning undermines any Claim about
God's intentions or behavior can't say
that God isn't all good because he
exists beyond your grasp then you can't
say God is good because he exists beyond
your grasp if you can't say he didn't
Inspire confusing or contradictory
scriptures because you'd have to have a
Godlike perspective to demonstrate that
then you can't say he inspired any
scriptures because you'd have to have a
Godlike perspective to demonstrate that
if objections to God's supposed nature
or behavior can be dismissed on the
grounds that humans are incapable of
understanding the ways of God than any
description of God's nature or behavior
can be dismissed on the grounds that
humans are incapable of understanding
the ways of God this is why I think this
defense of one's theology is rightly he
called overpowered it's so effective
that it kind of breaks the game that is
once theology this is obviously why this
idea of God's unintelligible nature is
only invoked in response to challenge
and ignored otherwise like many other
young theologically focused Christians I
learned this argument from Reading
apologetics books and hearing it
discussed in youth group they trained me
to bring it to mind any time I had or
heard difficult questions about theology
when such questions eventually began to
pile up in my senior year of college
Christian College mind you and serious
doubts emerged I fell back on that
training it kept me believing for quite
a while but eventually I saw that
training for what it was here's how I
explained that in my video where I visit
the creationist theme park the ark
encounter in hindsight I now see that
one of the main ways my big questions
were explained away as a Christian was
the argument that if something is hard
to understand or believe that's only
greater confirmation of God's word see
God is an intelligence far greater than
human understanding so we expect to lack
understanding of his words and ways
sometimes just because it doesn't make
sense to us doesn't mean it isn't true
now I realize that's a way of making
one's beliefs unfalsifiable it's enough
to chalk up all Flaws and All fallacies
and any theology to the ignorance of
those asking questions
convenient right this argument is only
meant for the specific purpose of
avoiding the falsification of one's
beliefs there's actually a term for this
kind of argument ad hoc reasoning or an
ad hoc hypothesis ad hoc is a Latin
phrase that translates to for this and
refers to something made for a special
purpose usually in an improvisational on
the spot kind of way an ad hoc
hypothesis is basically an excuse made
to rescue a potentially failing Theory
from falsification now proposing an ad
hoc hypothesis is not necessarily
logically fallacious if such a
hypothesis is testable and adds
explanatory power to the theory in
question that's not a problem I'll give
you an example of a fallacious ad hoc
hypothesis followed by a similar but
useful non-fallacious one I say there's
a dragon in my garage you ask to see it
I say it's unobservable but it's totally
still there I say there's a dragon in my
garage you ask to see it I say it's not
visible to the naked eye but but I think
it might be visible in the infrared
spectrum that second hypothesis could be
tested and whether testing confirms it
or not it still tells us something about
the theory of the Dragon in my garage
the first hypothesis on the other hand
is pretty useless for anything but
avoiding the falsification of my pet
Theory hey look at that a Carl Sagan
reference and an accidental pun thrown
in you guys are getting top tier quality
content today the theological argument
I've discussed here is an ad hoc
hypothesis in the style of the
unobservable Dragon its entire point is
that God's ways are unobservable it adds
nothing useful to and even severely
undermines the theory it seeks to defend
so while it first appears to be a
powerful defense of one's theology it's
actually as can be seen upon closer
inspection a fallacious and
self-defeating excuse for clinging to
one's preconceived ideas now if that was
not enough of a hot take I'll wrap up
with an even spicier opinion I think
devising clever ad hoc excuses for
holding onto one's spiritual beliefs a
set of ideas which is actually believed
for totally unrelated reasons is
basically what arguing for theology is
most of the time you start with a
conclusion based on beliefs you've
obtained through belonging to a group or
by emotionally powerful experiences then
any time in objection 2 or problem with
those beliefs is presented you create an
unfalsifiable ad hoc excuse for why
you're still justified in believing it
after all hypotheses about things
outside of nature or at least the grasp
of humans are not testable they add no
real explanatory power to the theories
they prop up
the ad hoc excuse is all one can say in
defense of these beliefs but what do you
think is that too harsh or too much of a
generalization do you like many past
commenters think what I call a hot take
is actually very mild let me know in the
comments thanks for watching I've been
Drew of genetically modified skeptic a
special thanks to my patrons for their
constant love and support if you want to
hear more from me then subscribe as
always if you are an apostate in need
there are resources Linked In the
description to help you find Community
and Mental Health support remember to be
kind to others in the comments and until
next time stay skeptical