Answering Lowder's Holocaust argument against God

I hope the reader will read all the material in FN [1] and [2]. [1] is Loswers full J argument. 2 is my full free will defense. I have to truncate both arguments and just present samples because there is too much between both to be put in a single blog piece. This means I will not do justice to either argument.

One observation we must keep in mind is that Lodwer lowers the bar from disproof of God to an argument against God. He does not claim he can disprove God. This is similar to my own ove of rejecting proofs for God's existence and in their place arguing rational warrant for belief.

The basis of Lowder's argument seems to be that the Holocaist is unique as a sort of off scale (my term not his) evil. It can't be approached through conventional free will defenses, Here is a sample of his argument:

From Lowder's Argument:

Holocaust persecution of Jews included anti-Semitic laws which made discrimination against Jews not just legally permissible but required; various forms of public identification and exclusion; organized violence; physical displacement; internment; widespread theft and plunder; and forced labor.  The Nazis murdered six million Jews, about two-thirds of all Jews living in Europe, primarily through mass shootings and death camps.[4] [his fn, see my fn3] Philosopher Andrea Weisberger explains what makes the Holocaust a unique and egregious example of horrendous evil.

The intent was to annihilate, without remainder, the Jewish people. This is genocide in its purest, most horrific configuration. What occurred to the Jews was not exactly like what occurred to other people who came within the German grasp, though these others suffered in the same concentration camps and endured the same physical and emotional deprivations. What was singular about the Nazi plan for the Jews was the intention to completely and categorically destroy an entire people simply because they existed, and for no other reason. The fact of existence as a Jew was reason enough for the Jewish death sentence. And this was the rationale for turning 1.5 million Jewish children into smoke. No other intention seems as purely evil. This intention marks the Holocaust as a different kind of evil, a kind of evil which is unfathomable.[5][his 5 seee my 3]

Also, notice that, although not directly relevant to generic or mere theism, the Holocaust would seem to be even more problematic for any specific version of theism which regards the Jews as God's chosen people. But, rather than pursue that argument, in the sections which follow I will enumerate specific features of the Holocaust which are surprising on the assumption that theism is true.

3.1. Biological Pain and the Suffering of Holocaust Victims

By all accounts, Holocaust victims experienced pain which was often biologically gratuitous, chronic, and debilitating. As just a partial description of this pain, consider the USHMM's summary of sicknesses and epidemics in the concentration camps: The overall conditions of camp life ensured that many people fell sick from the very first months, and their numbers rose steadily over time. Physical harassment of the prisoners resulted in numerous broken limbs and suppurating sores on the buttocks, usually after flogging.[3]It seems that his argument is a particular example of multiplying examples. He seems to be saying the Holocauset was so evil it's off scale and thus free will defense (FWD) does not apply. My response centers around my FWD which I call soteriological drama:

(1) God's aim in creation is to make a moral universe. A moral universe is understood as one in which free moral agents willingly choose the good. this,

(2) This requires free will of moral agents

(3)Allowance of free choices requires the risk that the chooser will make evil choices

. (4)The possibility of evil choices is a risk God must run, thus the value of free outweighs all other considerations, since without there would be no moral universe and the purpose of creation would be thwarted.Here I have shortened the argument for summary.

(5) God wants us to sek truth on a deep personal level so that we can internalize values of the good.

Since God must risk our making the wrong choices he can't put a limit on the level of evil we choose. If humans choose total depravity and attempted geneocde God Can't circumvent the will to choose that option. But who is to say God didn't limit the effects by enabling the allies to win the war?

Lowder's answer to FWD: "The occurrence of the Holocaust does not require free will, morality, or meaning. But let's put that aside. The claim that free will, morality, and meaning require God is just that: a claim needing a supporting argument. I do not find such an argument in your comment"[4] I don't see FW as a necesssity for the Holocaust but is a fact of life. WE have free will, I am convinced that God must not circumvent FW even to prevent the Holocaut. I do not think the evil of the event, severe and off scale though it be, is so huge that it outweighs the need to allow free will.

FW is the explanation as to why God allowed the event; it is not a requirement for the event to occur. Of course Jeff's rejection of the Divine to maintain morality and meaning is merely what atheists say. It's really just for anyone who would remain an atheist . As a believer in God I think they are ultimately the outcome of God as their source. Perhaps In a world without God we find morality in meaning some way but it would not be universal and timeless as it is because God's character is the basis for both,

He has more arguments on FWD: "What makes the horrors of the Holocaust such strong evidence against theism is that theism predicts the non-existence of horrors, including the Holocaust, whereas naturalism makes no such prediction. Why? Three reasons."

That is a real misconception and inaccuracy, christianity predicts such horrors because it takes seriously the notion of sin nature. That useats Lowder's argument.

First, "if God exists, then God is opposed to horrific suffering.'' SURE BUT HE'S ALSO OPPOSED TO CIRCUMVENTING FREE WILL, HE KNOWS ALL THE CRAP HUMANS WILL PULL BUT HE HAS TO LET THEM PULL IT.

Second, he asserts that humans would seek knowledge of God which requires an absence of horror.

That is not true. The presence of horror could push them into God's arms. not that he would bring it about for that reason. Third, "if God exists, then humans' deepest good can be achieved without horrors." Of course it could but not without a moral universe which necessitates free will. Free will will lead to horos at some point. So it is simply a necessary consequence of a moral universe.[5]

Following Schellenberg, we may distinguish between the following: "(i) outweighing goods and (ii) the deepest good of personal creatures."[15] Something may be an outweighing good without also being a deepest good. For example, suppose that God exists and humans have libertarian freedom. Many theists argue that the possession of libertarian freedom is an outweighing good, viz., that the value of creaturely freedom outweighs the disvalue of horrors. (And notice that even if we have this kind of freedom and it is of great value, theism provides us with an antecedent reason to think that God would favor the freedom of the Jews and other victims of the Nazis over the freedom of the Nazis themselves.) But, even if the value of creaturely freedom outweighs the disvalue of horrors, it does not follow that an ever-increasing knowledge of God cannot be achieved without horrors.[6]He continually assumes that God can't understand that all values are not instantly produced; they must be preceded by negative consequences. That is to deal with negative consequences of free will before we are ready for the good stuff. None of the aspects of peace and happiness which Lowder construes as values would be possible without a moral universe and that means a free will universe. That means we must endure a sinful universe for a time.We will come to the good times after we internalize the values of the good.

So is the Holocaust argument a powerful argument agaisnt beleif? Yes it is. It's probably their best argument. But it doesn't outweigh the preponderance of the evidence for belief in God.

Notes

Notes

[1]Jeffery J. Lowder,"The Holocaust is Strong Evidence Against Theism," Naturalistic Atheism, blog, (January 31, 2022)

http://naturalisticatheism.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-holocaust-is-strong-evidence.htmlacessed 4/19/22

[2] Joseph Hinman, "Theodicy:Soteriological drama" website, Religious a priori(no date) http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/04/answer-to-theodicy-soteriological-drama.htmlacessed 4/20/22

This is three pages they are linked with 2 at bottom of one,ect.

[3] Lowder op cit his fn 4 is United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, "Introduction to the Holocaust" https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust. his [5] Andrea Weisberger, Suffering Belief: Evil and the Anglo-American Defense of Theism Toronto Studies in Religion 23 (New York: Lang, 1999), 7.

[4] Jeffery J. Lowder, "The Holocaust is Strong Evidence Against Theism,"Disqus The web’s community of communities Disqus © 2022 Company https://disqus.com/by/jlowder/? acessed 4/20/22

[5] Lowder Naturalistic Atheism, op cit.

[6]Ibid