How could a good God allow bad things to happen?

From Sam Harris's athiest manifesto over at the Huffington Post:

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. . . .

. . .

. . . this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.

So there it is, argument over, atheism wins. Bad things happen, therefore there can not possibly be a God.

Of course, some may disagree. Harris's dissenters would include, inter alios, "the Genius" himself. Honest disagreement is fine; it is a means to reach the truth. Robust, truth-seeking debate which is open and honest should be encouraged. This article, is typical of the artificial rules placed on public discourse: arguments that consider God do not belong.

(1) on Harris's procedure:

Whoever frames an argument has a distinct advantage over his opponent. Antony Flew understood this. He tried to convince the world that there is a presumption of atheism, and it is the believers' job to present a scientific proof of God. [Of course, Flew has since broke (somewhat) with his athiest camp.]

Either the enlightened atheist Harris doesn’t understand the foundation of this debate or he is trying a little slight-of-hand to gain an advantage. When discussing pain, worldview means everything. Christians believe in eternal life; atheists believe that death is the end of the story. As quickly discussed below, understanding the Christian worldview demonstrates that the Christian position is at minimum a valid theory (and oh, yes, once you accept that, you will find that it is so much more).

Both sides of the debate may try to discredit the foundation of the others’ position, but no worldview should be, ipso facto, eliminated from discussion. Thus, the believer may need to address the atheistic point of view, and the atheist can not automatically discount any argument that references God.

Harris does attempt to discredit the opposing worldview, adopting from Flew a presumption of atheism:

The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence . . .

To Harris, this statement is the end of the matter, exemplifying one of the artificial rules of public discourse. According to this rule, a Christian can not prove God’s existence, and therefore the worldview is invalid. Unfortunately for Harris, this is not the end of the debate, but only the beginning. As for evidence of the existence of God, I would start with Thomas Aquinas. From there a long and difficult discussion may begin, which is exactly why Harris seeks to avoid it.

(2) On the substance of the argument when the Christian worldview allowed:

No one thinks all pain is bad. For example, an athlete exercises and trains, fighting through the aches and pain to get into prime physical shape. A person on a diet must suffer by skipping the potato chips when his stomach is growling. These are small pains but people voluntarily undertake them in order to reach a goal. For a person who believes in the eternal soul and everlasting life, a moment of pain, a year of pain, or a lifetime of pain is much like the temporary pain of training or dieting if it is responsible for getting a person to their goal of heaven. This explanation surely would not satisfy Harris, but it is the truth. I am not saying how, or even if, the suffering mentioned by Harris will lead to salvation, I’m only framing the argument from the Christian worldview. That is as far as this blog will go—all the difficult questions are left for much more intelligent people than me.