FICTION - The Problem of Evil & The Evidential Argument from Ice Cream

Introduction

The philosophical problem of evil has been and continues to be a topic of fierce debate among theists and atheists. Put simply, many people think the existence of moral evil, human suffering and all things French constitutes good reason to reject belief in an all-loving God. That is, if an all-powerful and all-loving God existed there would be no evil. And since evil exists, it is reasonable to believe that there is no God, and for the dyslexic atheist, no dog.

Prodigious works of literature like Dostoevsky’s The Brother’s Karamazov stand as timeless statements of the problem of evil and human suffering, as is the case with most thousand page Russian novels. In Albert Camus’ seminal work The Plague, a man must decide between chocolate or vanilla ice cream, which is seen as both a metaphor for racism and belief in God.

The Evidential Argument from Ice Cream

The Evidential Argument from Ice Cream can be understood as the following four propositions:

(a) God exists,
(b) If God exists, an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being exists,
(c) Human suffering, i.e. ice cream dripping on my shoe exists,
(d) An omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being would eliminate all ice cream dripping on my shoe,

Therefore, God does not exist.

The evidential argument from evil still proves a viable criticism of belief in God, and can also be understood in the following way: I have an ice cream cone. It begins to melt after only a few minutes and drips on my shoe. If God were all-loving then God would want me to be able to eat my ice cream cone without it melting on my shoe. If God were all-powerful then God could prevent ice cream from melting on my shoe. However, since ice cream does in fact melt on my shoe, it is logical to infer that an all-loving, all-powerful God does not exist.

Theism and Theodicy

Some theists have attempted to construct a viable theodicy in response to the evidential argument from ice cream. The lactose intolerant Oxford don, Sir Richard Simoes has formulated a version of the classical free-will defense. Human freedom, Simoes maintains, makes possible the choice to eat, or refrain from eating ice cream. Or, “because cones are not logically predicated by ice cream,” one can choose to eat from a bowl and thus prevent dripping. Thus, by creating human freedom God has facilitated eating ice cream without danger of dripping.

However, the noted cookies n cream enthusiast & scholar, Shodd Twilligear, thinks this argument arbitrarily privileges the good of free will over the good of eating ice cream, especially from a cone. And while Twilligear concedes that ice cream is not logically predicated by the existence of a cone, the existence of cones and the human preference for cones is nonetheless evidence of “double modality, that is, cones are possible but not necessarily necessary.”

In another attempt at theodicy, the theistic philosopher and author of Neapolitan as Trinity, Dr. Daniel Reiter offered his now famous ‘Sundae Building Theodicy’. This argument maintains that the human suffering entailed by dripping ice cream will motivate human agents to build a perfect, frozen dairy treat which he compares to a ‘sundae’. Reiter posits the ‘sundae’ as the perfect development of the frozen, dairy treat, free from dripping. “The cone can be placed on top of the ice cream, like a hat, thus preventing any dripping on the shoes.” Reiter, a crypto-Universalist, has received criticism from evangelicals for his insistence that the ‘perfect sundae’ would not only necessarily entail an infinite number of toppings, but spoons enough for everyone.

The eminent Christian apologist and Anglican scholar Jessica Talamantez, has posited her controversial “sherbet theodicy” in which she argues that the development of metaphysical categories such as sherbet and yogurt have made the evidential argument from ice cream outdated. In order to facilitate meaningful dialogue, Talamantez argues that another version of the evidential argument from ice cream utilizing these “non-dairy alternatives [will] provide a more precise examination of flavorful options.”

Conclusion

I conclude that theism has failed in response to the evidential argument from ice cream. In each case theism has failed to take into account the pointless evil and gratuitous suffering caused by ice cream dripping on my shoe. The existence of ice cream dripping on my shoe is reason enough to reject belief in God, and thus the evidential argument from ice cream is a valid criticism of theism.

Selected Bibliography:Simoes R. 'The Homogenization of Human Free Will',

Oxford Univ. Press,1996
Twilligear, S. 'Modality and the Question of Possible Cones', IVP,1999
Reiter, D. 'Sundae Building Theodicy & the God of Love' Abingdon Press, 2002
Talamantez, J. 'Some Varietes of Frozen Theodicy' Yale Univ. Press, 2005