As I understand philosophers traditionally equate evil with suffering and this is particularly so with respect to "the problem of evil." I was more dismissive of the problem of evil when I was younger. But with experience and maturity it has become more of a problem for me, I confess.

You missed the point. Your methodology is the issue.

But if one takes a deistic view, is the suffering evil? Is the objection that if God asllows or causes suffering he can't be all good?

The article goes on to say that the problem of evil and hence Darwinism is not a problem for Deism. Deism is not the type of worship described in the quote.

Now that was funny.

LOL. A bom apologist lecturing me about "methodology." The old big word dropping tactic. Personally, I don't know if religious people are more immoral than non-religious people. I have read studies that say the answer is at best inconclusive, and much depends on how you categorize Stalin and Hitler, as practicing secularism or a type of dogma and hence religion. I was simply resonding to Indy's clear insinuation that atheists used natural selection as a rationale to disclaim God with an ulterior motive, and citing a famously religious person (apparenlty often quoted in GC) to make the point that the case is not at all open and shut in favor of religious people. I simply employed a common rhetorical device, and unlike your FARMSy friends have never engaged in a pretense of being scientific or systematic.

You haven't answered by question. What discipline are you trained in? I have a degree in economics and I'm trained in quantitative methods. Not a warm-fuzzy liberal arts guy. And I spotted endogeneity in your use of evidence. Your CS Lewis paraphrase does nothing to support your claim.

If "endogeneity" is too big of a word for you, let me illustrate with an example.

"Because high-crime areas have more cops on the street, cops cause crime to go up."

I'm a lawyer.

If you think economics is not a "warm and fuzzy" type of thing you are sadly deluded. It's social science, which, as I'm sure the real scientists here will verify, is not science at all. Moreover, you probably only got a BS in it. I minored in econ, so there.

In any event, between you and me there is only one of us who comes here pretending to be something he is not.

At the U, one of the only two Marxist departments in the country. The stuff they teach you is not mainstream. You still won't know anything about modern economic theory.

I currently only have a bachelor's, but I've taken graduate-level methodology courses. I know enough to read and understand empirical literature.

I agree.

And here is his methodology. "You believe in the book of Mormon, ergo, your statements are not credible. Hitler and Stalin had religions, too, after all."