Nonbelief & Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God - Theodore M. Drange

Lopsided argumentation

I do not belong to any Christian church but I am interested in problems in the philosophy of religion. When I opened up Drange's book, I thought it would offer a rigorous point-by-point refutation of God's existence and thus make a good, challenging read. Instead I found him to be most uncharitable to his opponents. Just as one example, on p. 183 Drange quotes a paragraph from an essay by Marilyn McCord Adams, a theist and philosopher well-respected in academia, but then goes on to write that he doesn't understand terms Adams uses such as "inner life of God" and "beatific vision." But is Drange even trying to understand her words on her terms? It is hard to see that he is. Instead he runs roughshod over the whole passage and dismisses her ideas, whatever they might mean, out of hand. The book goes on and on like this. In my experience the most rewarding critiques extend far in building up opposing arguments that at first look weak or inscrutable, to better make one's case. Give the other side its best showing, not its most impoverished form which Drange does repeatedly. It doesn't take an "evangelical" or "liberal" Christian to dislike the arrogance that works its way into and compromises Drange's argument. A more worthwhile book to me is "Sense and Nonsense in Religion" by Sten H. Stenson. Intending to write a refutation of theism, Stenson ended up taking the opposite view by drawing comparisons between puns and religious experience. An interesting read.

quite good

This is a very detailed exposition of atheism's best argument for the non-existence of God, the "argument from evil", as well as a modern variation of it called here the "argument from non-belief", but better known as the "argument from God's hiddenness". In short this latter argument states that if God existed then God would have placed us in an environment where God's existence would be quite obvious; but God's existence is not at all obvious and therefore God does not exist.

Theodore Drange is professor emeritus of philosophy at West Virginia university, and he writes in a serious tone I found appealing. He starts his book by presenting a precise definition of the arguments from evil and from non-belief. Significantly these arguments must take into account what God wants to do, and not what we would like God want to do. Then he presents a great many theistic defenses, to which he responds with atheistic objections.

Now there are many God concepts and most philosophers discuss the "philosophers' God", i.e. a concept they themselves define by positing some specific premises. Drange chose to base his book on the "God of evangelical Christianity" whom he defines as the God as literally described in the Bible. I think that was an unfortunate choice because first of all the Bible is a sprawling and often self-contradictory document and you don't really need longwinded arguments to argue that that God does not exist, for it suffices to point out the contradictions. Secondly the God as literally described in the Bible is the God of fundamentalism and this is really a special case; there are many theists who don't believe in the fundamentalists' concept of God either. Thirdly using the Bible as the description of God makes his work too easy as he can freely choose bits and pieces from the Bible when they suit his goal to weaken a particular theistic defense. For example on page 157 he questions whether the God of evangelical Christianity has foreknowledge of peoples' actions and notes that as the Bible is not clear on this point the so-called "Testing Defense" is compromised. Only at the penultimate chapter of the book does he briefly discuss "God in general" and in particular the God of liberal Christianity. In the final chapter he assesses the strength of the two atheistic arguments and finds that the argument from evil is 85% successful against the God of evangelical Christianity, and the argument from non-belief 95%. He concedes that both arguments are at 20% quite ineffective against the "unrestricted" God of liberal Christianity - which may explain why in this book he chose to attack the God as literally described in the Bible. At about 75% the two arguments fare better against the "restricted" God of liberal Christianity, who is defined as the God affirmed by positively responding to five questions he posits. But these questions strike me as trick questions. For example the very fist question is: "Could God have prevented or reduced the suffering and premature death that exists or occurs in the world?". I think this is a trick question because, as Drange's own precise exposition of the argument from evil shows, the fundamental issue is what God wants to do. So the answer to this question is not Yes or No, but rather "Depends on what God wants." Similarly the third question is "Does God want humans to love him maximally, or at least greatly?" Here the obvious answer is Yes but I think this too is a trick question because what is relevant is what God wants *most*. So if the question were rephrased as "Is what God wants most for humanity that humans love him maximally or at least greatly" then the answer may very well be No.

The argument from evil is considered to be the best atheistic argument, and indeed it carries a lot of emotional force. One of the best known theistic defenses against this argument is John Hick's modern exposition of Irenaean theodicy. I personally find this defense very powerful and was curious to see how Drange would respond to it. So it was for me a major disappointment to find out that after concisely describing Hick's ideas Drange hardly responds to them but informs his readers (on page 148) that Michael Martin in his book on atheism devotes a chapter on it. What's the point in discussing in minute detail dozens of relatively minor theistic defenses and then hand-waving away what is probably the most interesting and powerful defense?

Having said that, the general quality of exposition and the sheer wealth of ideas described in this book make it a very good read. The debate about the existence of God is often trivialized by both sides, and reading this book one understands how deep and far from trivial the relevant issues are.

A sub-par atheistic reference

As a strong-atheist, I was very keen to read Nonbelief & Evil. Drange's book treats, as its title says, of two important strong-atheistic arguments, the Argument from Nonbelief (which holds the existence of nonbelief as evidence that no god is there to ensure that we all believe in it) and the Argument from Evil (which uses the existence of evil as evidence of the absence of an omnibenevolent Creator). The majority of the book is dedicated, however, to proving these arguments as regards to evangelical Christianity, not theism in general, so strong-atheists may be dissapointed on the limited application of the book.

In part 1 (p21-96), Drange introduces his approach. He explains why, for one thing, he uses suffering as evidence for the PoE instead of evil, the different types of PoEs,discusses divine hiddenness, and formulates his arguments. One nice feature, that is found throughout the book, is the reliance on Bible verses and Christian doctrine to support points against evangelical Christianity. Drange has obviously well-reszearched his position. The last chapter is interesting, in that he tries to refute what he calls "objections from the left", that is, noncognitivism (which he assumes is against both atheism and theism). It is nice to see him addressing that issue, but he does not seem to understand the scope of noncognitivism, especially when he concludes that the god of the Bible is sufficiently cognitive for the purposes of argumentation.

In part 2 (p97-230), Drange defends the ANB and PoE to the god of evangelical Christianity against various theodicies, concentrating on the Free Will Defense and the Unknown-Purpose Defense. Since he argues from contracausal free will, materialists will probably want to skip some parts.

In Part 3 (p231-295), Drange applies the arguments to the god of Orthodox Judaism, the god of Liberal Christianity, and "god in general". In this he merely rehashes his previous positions and presents virtually nothing new.

To be honest, I found this book extremely dull, riddled with errors and absurdities, reflecting shoddy thinking, and rather unoriginal. Apart from presenting a novel argument (the Ignorance Argument) and making and making a rigorous case against evangelical Christianity, it seems to have little redeeming quality. The thick and interesting appendices do not redeem this total mess. Do not buy unless you are specifically interested in these two arguments as regards to evangelical Christianity.

Based on false understanding of theology

I have looked at this book, and as a previous reviewer writes, "Drange uses Biblical support to show that god wants everyone to be saved and "come to know the truth" by the time they physically die, and yet we observe that even after 2000 years only 33% of humanity is Christian (and by the way, that number is dropping)."

However, this is not a good argument since it is not relevant to the biblical concept of God. For example, the argument would clearly leave a Calvinist COMPLETELY UNTOUCHED. In fact, if you use this argument against a relatively informed Calvinist, you might make him fall to the floor and laugh really hard, but that's about as far as you are going to get.

So, nice try, but not really.

Excellent!

Theodore Drange has done a remarkable work with his book Nonbelief & Evil. I have throughly enjoyed reading his discussion and he does a wonderful job of addressing all sides of the arguments. Higly recommend for anybody seeking real truth.