In a nutshell, the writer seems to be sort of a “deist-agnostic”. He’s open to the idea that there is “something” out there beyond our understanding and that that “something” might have something to do with our existence. But, if there is a “something”, it cannot possibly be the Christian God or the God of Judaism.
His main argument against the Christian view of God is the existence of human suffering. The writer thinks that is the smoking gun that thwarts all belief in a “good” God.
At least, that’s my take on the article’s main points.
the problem of suffering has been refuted to the point where no serious academic uses it as an argument anymore. Bogus tripe
It starts out well, but then the author spews the same hate he complains about. Not much worth reading here.
From where does he get the morality to define what a “good” God is?
Wow. That is an incredibly novel argument. I wonder why no one has ever thought questioning why God allows suffering in His fallen creation before this NYT piece? I mean, that would just shake any person's faith...
except not. See Job. What's amazing about amateur philosophers like this is that like angst filled college kids, they are convinced that they have come up with an unassailable argument that no one has ever thought of before. It's tiring just dealing with the repetition.