Godforsaken: Bad Things Happen. Is there a God who cares? Yes. Heres proof. [Hardcover]

Dinesh D'Souza claims that the motivation behind much of atheism is not from a genuine disbelief in a god, rather it is an anger and bewilderment stemming from an inability to reconcile the simultaneous existence of an allegedly all-powerful and all-loving God along with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. Atheists argue that such a god must be impotent, cruel or likely non-existent. Drawing from cultural anthropology, science, theology, and philosophy, D'Souza attempts to refute these claims by providing an explanation for the possibility of the coexistence of both suffering and the omnipotent God.

D'Souza begins by discussing how suffering is viewed in different cultures, traditions and religions. He points out that people in third world countries struggle with suffering much more so than people in western nations, yet religious faith abounds for the former and is in decline for the latter. He believes this may be due to how prosperity gives one the sense that they are self-sufficient; yet poor people feel compelled to depend on a higher power. D'Souza introduces this idea to later suggest that suffering's purpose may be to draw people into a closer relationship with God. Perhaps, but why is suffering possible and permissible with an omnipotent, all loving God; and if God wants a relationship, are there not other ways to do it without suffering? D'Souza delivers answers to these questions.

Much of D'Souza's arguments rest on two important ideas: the scientific concept of the anthropic principle; and the limits of omnipotence. The anthropic principle is the notion that the universe, given its vastness, immensity, age, and complexity is perfect, finely tuned and all exactly necessary for the existence of moral beings called humans. If true, it counters what the Copernican helio-centric model seemed to imply to many, which is that humans are not central features to the universe. The anthropic principle suggests that all human activity, including suffering, is significant, therefore has meaning and purpose.

D'Souza points out that there are those who argue that some occurrences of suffering, particularly horrendous suffering, have absolutely no meaning or purpose at all. In response he offers the analogy of a small child who severely questions her parents for subjecting her to the suffering of a doctors needle. From her perspective she may view her suffering as senseless; however, she does not benefit from the perspective of her parents who understand that her suffering is merely temporary and is intended to allay further suffering from disease. If the gap between child and parent is wide, D'Souza posits, how much is the gap between a finite man and an eternal God? Such a gap would be wide indeed; therefore D'Souza argues that just because a reason for suffering cannot be discerned, it does not mean one does not exist.

One of D'Souza's more interesting arguments deals with the limits of God's omnipotence. For example, can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? Can God create a four-sided triangle? No, says D'Souza. He explains being all-powerful is not the same as having the ability to do anything. God can have infinite power but he cannot be non-sensical. Can God tell a lie? According to D'Souza, no. If God is ultimate truth, a lie from him would mean that there is a standard of truth that supersedes him, and God would cease being ultimate truth. This is important for D'Souza to establish because some argue that if God is omnipotent, why could he not have created a world without suffering and evil. D'Souza argues that if God intended to create creatures in his image, he wanted them to have the ability to reflect his love; however, for love to be genuine it must be the product of free will, which means that humans have the ability to reject Him and conduct evil.

Throughout his work D'Souza distinguishes between moral evil and natural disasters; explores the hiddenous of God; explains the alleged evil acts of the Old Testament God; and delivers heavy doses of Christian apologetics.

D'Souza acknowledges that suffering is an unavoidable aspect of life and his arguments are not attempts to reduce it, rather he wants to offer reason and evidence-based explanations why an omnipotent entity would permit suffering in a moral universe. Moreover he wants to offer hope to those who are enduring severe hardships by giving them sensible reasons why their experiences have meaning and significance to an eternally loving God. This work is well-written and persuasively argued and is recommended for believers and non-believers who think about the purpose of human history.

The constant debate between Christians and Atheists seems to always to orbit around the problem of a benevolent God with the reality of a broken, evil world. While this struggle has been going on for centuries, D'Souza brings some fresh perspective to the table, invoking modern day science as proof for theism. At first blush, this may seem counterintuitive, but D'Souza's arguments are balanced and compelling. These insights would have inspired a 5 star review from me, that is, until I got to the last chapter of the book which talked about the afterlife. Here, D'Souza completely drops his logic utilized in the first 90% of his book and goes with a typical Evangelical pat answer. There is a tremendous amount of good in this book that should be praised. With that being said, there is some ugly in this book that needs to be addressed.

The Good
The biggest issue in defending the Christian faith is the problem of theodicy. Why did an all loving, all powerful creator make a world with so much pain and evil? This is typically the biggest arguing point from atheists and their concerns are legitimate. Yet D'Souza fearlessly tackles these concerns using empirical evidence from modern sciences like Astronomy, Biology and Geology. Many of his arguments are nothing incredibly new - he employs many of the typical free will defense logics and things like the anthropic view of the Universe in his case. However, while many of his arguments are often used to defend the existence of God, he uses them in a way to reconcile the problems between an all loving God and a suffering world. In modern Christianity, where tragedy and suffering is gratuitously met with the pat answer of, "it was God's will", D'Souza's wonderful perspective is badly needed. I sincerely hope that more people run down the road he has pioneered.

Another important feature of D'Souza's arguments is that he compellingly uses evolution as a theodicy defense. Not only does this make the case for Christianity much stronger, it should also help Christians come to grips with the seemingly obvious fact that evolution is scientifically proven and the world and universe are really, really old. Christians who believe in a literal six day creation may have some epistemological shock when reading D'Souza's book since many of them were ingrained to believe that evolution threatens the Faith. Yet D'Souza argues that Darwin's evolution was a gift and actually helps to prove the existence of God and the problem of theodicy.

There were pages upon pages of facts and quotes that were just begging to be highlighted (which was sad for me because the book was a loaner). D'Souza did a respectful job in presenting the case of his opponents before he attempted to refute them. His logic was seemingly free from any straw man arguments. Although many of his thoughts were particularly new, the way he presented them were wonderfully fresh. I particularly enjoyed his take on wounded theism and global perspectives of suffering.

The Bad
There aren't many nuances to criticize in the book. D'Souza tackled quite a broad topic and because the book wasn't all that long, some of his chapters felt crammed and glossed over. D'Souza admittedly tries to address both Christians and atheists, but I felt his writing was largely focused on refuting atheists. Not that there's anything wrong with this, but some of the more theological aspects of the book felt rushed through. Certain aspects may leave Christians on edge, like his belief that God doesn't have feelings. While this is a completely legitimate view, it can be quite a jarring statement if it's not properly fleshed out. While he is against anthropomorphizing God, he does this very thing in trying to explain the Atonement. God "suffered the death and loss of his son", D'Souza writes, but this statement is logically inconsistent with the fact that he stated that God does not have feelings in a few chapters prior.

While the majority of the book was logically coherent, some of his examples here found wanting. D'Souza devotes an entire chapter to the problem of evil in the Old Testament. His defensives were on the right track, but D'Souza sort of gave up the fight at the end. One can't put too much critique on D'Souza since the issue of the Old Testament alone merits volumes instead of mere pages, nevertheless, I was left a little disappointed.

The Ugly
Up until this point, my review, with the exception of a few nuances, has been praiseful of this book. However I must say that I found the last chapter of the book, which deals with the concept of eternal hell, to be borderline disturbing. I will say that many Christians, particularly Evangelicals, would disagree with my critique. I can respect that. It is true that I passionately disagree with D'Souza's view on some sort of eternal conscious torment. But I'm not one to just give a bad review because I disagree. I found his arguments on this topic to be woefully inconsistent and damaging to the rest of the book, thus my reason for criticism.

The entire scope and reason for D'Souza's book was to address the problem of evil by using science as its chief argument. And yet, when it comes to the problem of a omnibenevolent God sending people to Hell for eternity, he throws his former logic right out the window. His response to Hell, put plainly, is the woefully Evangelical pat answer of "God wants to save everyone, but his justice prevent him from saving those who reject him".

D'Souza admits that this is the biggest problem with proving that God is all loving, yet he spends the least amount of time defending it. In fact, his defense makes other parts of his book painfully contradictory. In previous chapters, D'Souza rightfully combats the argument that says the world is so full of suffering that it would have been better if God wouldn't have created us at all. D'Souza uses the example of an amputee and compellingly argues that even in the face of suffering, there is still enough beauty in the world to make life worth living. This is well and good...if eternal suffering weren't in the equation.

Life is indeed worth living, even at the risk of excessive suffering. But if by existing meant the possibility of eternal conscious torment, then it would be much more beneficial if none of us ever existed. To put it another way, if there were any chance that my two sons would go on from this life to experience eternal conscious torment, as much as I love them, it would have been morally repugnant for me to bring them into the world. This is a powerful and devastating argument held both by atheists and certain Christians, yet D'Souza glosses over it with one of the flimsiest church traditions.
It gets worse. D'Souza goes out of his way to argue that Hell is essentially a blessing from God. He says, "Hell, too, is a tribute to God's generosity. How? By being a testament to God's commitment to human freedom."

There is no sliver of logic in this maddening quote. How can any sound-minded individual honestly believe that the invention of eternal torment is a gift from God because it upholds the integrity of human free will? If by having free will meant that the majority of history's humans were consigned to eternal torment, I'd much rather God made us all robots.
But D'Souza doesn't stop there. He spends approximately half a page in "refuting" the doctrines of annihilatationism and universal reconciliation. While these two doctrines are respectfully held my many Christians, fully arguable from a Biblical standpoint, and easily more reconcilable with theodicy, D'Souza writes them off by saying they're "clearly opposed to what the Bible repeatedly teaches". He then goes on to defend his view of hell that, by-and-large, renders much of his book null and void.

I was very excited for this book and loved it all the way up until the ending. Unfortunately, with all of his compelling arguments, atheists will always have an upper hand in the debate for exposing a doctrine that makes God a moral monster. I would still definitely recommend this book for Christians who wish to sharpen their apologetical skills and acquire a healthy view of why God allows suffering. However, I'm afraid that this book will do nothing in compelling an atheist to believe in God. The gravest concern about our faith was met with an underwhelming, and maybe even counterproductive, response.

Near the conclusion of his life, Jean-Paul Sartre confessed to Pierre Victor: "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being that only a Creator could put here. This idea of a creating hand refers to God." On hearing this confession, fellow atheist philosopher and long-time cohort Simone de Beauvoir protested: "How should one explain the senile act of a turncoat?" (His Magazine, 4/1983). And many nonbelievers come to reject their unbelief in the face of trial or death. Life can be difficult and troubling; but God is there and He responds. Yet, for many people one of the most significant questions is why would a good God allow evil and suffering. Dinesh D'Souza (president of The King's College) clearly but nimbly answers these difficult questions and those that extend from them.

D'Souza approaches this difficult subject using:

* historical proof
* and scientific reasons
* scriptural comfort
* and personal examples

"Through our suffering, through taking up our own cross daily to follow him, we have the honor of walking the Via Dolorosa with Christ himself. We have the privilege of sharing in the loneliness and anguish of cross on Calvary--as well as in the special comfort God shares with those who entrust to him their hurting hearts."

This volume discusses:

* Moral Evil
* Crimes of Nature
* The goodness of God
* And more

Ultimately a human does not know why suffering is allowed by God. We just don't know, and that's okay. God is God and we are not. But no argument using evil/suffering/pain can defeat theism. The discussion of this difficult problem actually requires God to be intelligible. And God is always with His people.

review written by Mike Robinson author of numerous books including "Truth, Knowledge, and the Reason for God" on Amazon.