When something disastrous happens, like Katrina, "logic" says: so much the worse for a loving God. But for the believer, what comes out, instead, are things like "God never gives us more than we can handle" and "We have to praise the Lord, and thank him, that we are OK." Why? (Or is this just a psychological or sociological question? Or did I watch too much Fox news?)

In late 1991 or early 1992 (I forget which semester), Alvin Plantinga, who has written much-praised super-analytic papers defending Christianity from the problem of evil, gave an informal talk in Budapest, sponsored by the philosophy department of the Technical University. I was fortunate to be in attendance. We sat around a large, beautiful wood table (don't ask me the kind of tree it came from, please). Maybe ten people came to hear him. After his presentation, which was on the problem of evil, I asked (roughly): "You've been trying to explain to us why an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient being permits evil. But the point of the existence of what appears to be unnecessary, purposeless, needless suffering is that such a God cannot or likely does not exist. Why, then, are you searching for an explanation?" Plantinga replied (roughly): "I believe in that sort of God, and therefore there must be an explanation; the suffering must have a purpose." (I had heard that before.) I followed up with, "but...

Plantinga writes, in the quoted passage, " what God sees as better is, of course, better. " Oh? Of course? Having solved to his own satisfaction the problem of evil, can Alvin also solve the Euthyphro-style dilemma that arises here? (1) A world is better because God sees it as better vs. (2) God sees a world as better because it is better.