Johnson Good Vs Evil Summary

In his attempt to understand why God doesn't intervene to prevent evil, B.C. Johnson uses common claims made by many theists to disprove the goodness of God. Building the article upon a hypothetical example of a baby being burned alive in an electrical house fire, Johnson bases his stance on God's goodness on whether or not God saves the baby. According to Johnson, God is not good if he does not intervene tragedies and is likened to a bystander who's fully capable of helping but doesn't. Whether or not the baby goes to heaven doesn't matter as long as the baby has to suffer in that house fire. God is compared to a physician or a firefighter that doesn't assist so that people wouldn't be dependent upon an outside power or to promote moral urgency. Without disasters, the author challenges claim that there would be no virtues for people to learn. So the question becomes do God inflict tragedies to create a sense of moral urgency and do people no longer desire to end wars because wars create a sense of a need for virtues. Johnson suggests that God shouldn't …show more content…
Johnson's stance is based upon a selfish point of view. Johnson has the understanding that people are suffering when there is an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God. So johnson is asking why did Hitler not die earlier, why do disasters, and why do the innocent suffer. Why do there have to be these big deal sufferings like wars and natural disasters? Why can't I just learn pain through having a toothache? Johnson took the stance that God is just a bystander with all power to end the pain but evilly didn't. However, the "lack of action" on God's part doesn't mean he's not good. Job was a just man and God loved him and allowed Job to suffer. Jesus, an innocent man, had to die on the cross on the behalf of sinners so that we can be saved. Jesus had to suffer, but God never stopped loving him and being good. Suffering does not equate to God being evil, and bad things happening does not mean God is not