I've been thinking a lot about a certain kind of argument for the existence of God. It's not the "Something has to have made all this, and that something has to be God" argument. It's not the "Something has to have come first, and that something has to be God" argument. It's not even the wide assortment of "I don't want for there not to be a God, therefore there has to be a God" arguments.
It's the "Look at the wonderful things that happen -- therefore there has to be a God" argument. When someone recovers from a serious illness, when someone gets the perfect job right in the nick of time, when someone finds the earring they lost... it's given as proof of God at work.
The argument always has a certain "blessed if you do, blessed if you don't" quality to it. When good things happen, it's a sign of God's love. But when bad things happen... well, God works in mysterious ways. He must have some lesson to teach us, some larger plan that we're not aware of, and this bad thing must be part of that lesson/ plan. And who are we to question him? He knows what's right better than we do.
So here's what I find interesting about this argument. (Apart from the obvious circular reasoning and massive logical holes, of course.)
It assumes that the speaker knows the ultimate divine definition of good and evil. Despite the "mysterious ways/ we don't know what's right and wrong as well as God does" cop-out, it assumes that the speaker knows God's intentions, and knows what God thinks is good and bad.
Look at it this way. What qualifies as a good or a bad event varies, at least somewhat, depending on the believer. Take gay people dying of AIDS. If you're a progressive, gay- positive Christian, gay people dying of AIDS is a terrible tragedy: and if you believe in an all-powerful loving God, it's a tragedy that has to be chalked up to mysterious ways and a larger divine plan that we can't understand. But if you're a homophobic right-wing fundie, gay people dying of AIDS is an obvious example of God's justice, a righteous punishment for sin. (Why lesbians don't get punished in the same way as gay men, or why some "sinful" sex acts spread the virus more readily than others... well, that's just mysterious ways.)
So when someone says, "X is a clear sign of a benevolent and just God's active presence in the world, but Y means that God works in mysterious ways and we can't question his plan" -- doesn't that assume that they know what qualifies as obvious benevolence and justice, and what qualifies as a troubling but presumably necessary part of God's plan? Doesn't that assume that they know God's plan... at least well enough to identify which parts of it are clearly and self-evidently part of that plan, and which parts are a gray, question- mark area that'll have to be filled in later?
My main problem with this argument, of course, is the obvious logical one: namely, that no matter what happens -- good, bad or indifferent -- it gets used as evidence of God's existence. Thus rendering the God hypothesis unfalsifiable... and therefore utterly useless. (If any outcome whatsoever can fit into your hypothesis, it has no power to explain the past or predict the future.)
But this pride thing has been bugging me a lot lately. Maybe it's because I'm tired of theists accusing atheists of being arrogant, when we're the one who (on the whole) are saying, "Hey, show me evidence that I'm wrong, and I'll change my mind," and they're the ones who (on the whole) are saying, "No argument or evidence could ever convince me that my faith is mistaken." But the more closely I look at religion, the more I see the supposed deadly sin of pride all over it like a cheap suit.
And the "blessed if you do, blessed if you don't" view of God's plan is just another example.