Growing up, I loved puzzles, at least the ones I could solve. Few things were more satisfying than sharing a riddle with a friend and watching them give up in defeat. Over the years, I have learned that some puzzles are puzzles that entertain and others are puzzles that educate us. Most of the puzzles are little more than harmless puzzles to pass the time. Some force us to face life's deepest mysteries. Even trying to solve such puzzles often leaves us confused and perplexed. Sometimes our attempts to answer these questions push us toward great faith, but almost as easily push us into the disturbing shadows of darkness and doubt. Few willingly face such questions, but ultimately we must face our deepest doubts and fears. In most cases, these questions come when we are most vulnerable and exposed. In such moments, our entire perspective can be transformed. No puzzle, no question can be more daunting than questions about the existence of evil and human suffering. Only the most insensitive heart is not touched by images of suffering children. Only the hardest heart can see a child's belly swollen with hunger and not wonder why. Few scenes create more despair than that of a tearful mother cradling the mutilated and lifeless body of her son amid the destruction caused by another senseless and indiscriminate suicide bombing. Every day we are inundated with images of nature's wrath against those least able to protect themselves. Faced with such powerful images of human suffering, we shudder, we cry, we are perplexed and even scream at the senselessness. We temper ourselves against the carnage, but ultimately we can no longer avoid such difficult questions. Theists and non-theists alike face their doubts, seeking some sort of answer that… middle of paper… sole guiding principle of public policy. Less “evolved” people must be eliminated: evolution is necessarily racist. If evolution solves the mystery of human existence, then logically some humans are more advanced than others. These individuals must be identified and their reproduction encouraged even as we limit reproduction by lesser humans. Non-theists may shy away from this legacy, but it is theirs. Today, leading non-theistic ethicists propose precisely what their philosophical fathers suggested. Children deemed unfit should die; when individuals become useless, their lives should end. Resources should be committed to eliminating those who drain resources from the deserving. The world of non-theists is harsh and indifferent: the natural result of their worldview. Harsh, perhaps, but logical and consistent with their statements: God not only does not exist, but is not necessary.