The 'Just World' & Christianity

Here is something that really irritated me this morning. Why the heck do (some) Christians seem so blindly accepting of the "just world hypothesis?" This hypothesis proposes that the world is as it should be. I see friends and acquaintances constantly spewing the following statements or etching them on their web pages: "everything is how it's supposed to be," "everyday is blessed," or "God is the reason for blah blah blah." I think to myself, "Are they that naïve? Do they genuinely believe this; or are they just astoundingly ignorant of what is happening in the world?"

Religious beliefs aside, what would make them take such an absurd view of the world? I find these people to be either really stupid, or really sheltered and oblivious to hold such a patently false view of the world. Moreover, such views generate apathy towards others in bad situations. Just world believers rationalize the apparent contradictions to their view by blaming the victims, asserting that the people in bad situations somehow deserve their poor lot in life; or they think some people's suffering – we’re talking millions here, but just one person is unacceptable – is part of God's larger “plan” for us? What freaking plan? To satisfy his sadistic desires? Why does an omniperfect, omnipotent being need to use an imperfect process (e.g., some form of utilitarianism) to enact his ultimate plan? This irrational view brings on the old "problem of evil" with a vengeance.

For those not acquainted with the argument, it's basically goes (excuse my crude presentation of it): why does God allow evil to exist if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? If "he" is omnibenevolent, why does he allow evil to exist when he is omnipotent and omniscient and can stop it? Can he not foresee it happening? But he's omniscient – he necessarily knows everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will ever happen. And he's necessarily all-powerful. Maybe, evil needs to exist for humans to practice morality. OK, maybe, but why does there have to be so much of it? Isn't just a few examples enough? Better yet, can’t he just give us an innate concept of evil? After all, isn't he necessarily all-powerful? So (provisionally) accepting that God is omniscient and omnipotent, should we still view him as omnibenevolent? Well, maybe evil doesn't actually exist. Can you really take that claim seriously? It's patently false. Trudging through all the other details, the likely conclusion: God doesn't exist (or he exists, but he ain't the God of Judeo-Christian doctrine).

So the just world hypothesis resurrects (no pun intended) this old argument against God's existence. Ironically, it seems the most damming problem for some ordinary believers. However, to philosophically trained people, it isn't that pernicious. Modal logic (e.g., defining the scope of necessarily p vs. p necessarily), "loosens" the hook on God as far as the all-knowing part. Well at least in all logically possible worlds (i.e., counterfactual conditions). In this world, he still owes us a big explanation for the overwhelming evil.

Leaving that problem aside however, it seems that either many theists on careful reflection of these false assertions would (I hope) probably reject the just world hypothesis, or if held on to, then it would probably reveal they're disturbing lack of touch with the real world.


Addendum: I thought this quote out of the new book, Letter to a Christian Nation by the philosopher Sam Harris, seemed appropiate to this post:

The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ's love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism... such hatred draws considerable support from the Bible.

~AP