ARTICLE

Is t h e R e a lity o f Evil
G o o d E v id e n c e A g a in s t
t h e C h r is tia n G o d ?
Notes from a Debate on the Problem of Evil
BY MICHAEL SHERMER

O n Saturday, February 23,2019, 1 participated With this distinctive difference in thinking

in a “moderated conversation” at the Southern Evan­ between religion and science it was not long be­
gelical Seminary (SES) in Charlotte, North Carolina, fore both of us realized that we were talking at
with the philosopher Dr. Brian Huffling. (You can cross purposes, inasmuch as Dr. Huffling was mak­
watch it here: https://bit.ly/2H8RfAU) The stated ing philosophical arguments for why the problem
mission of SES is to “train men and women, based of evil was a solvable one for the Christian reli­
on the inerrant and infallible written Word of God, gion, whereas I was presenting empirical evidence
for the evangelization of the world and defense of for why I think the problem of evil is an insoluble
the historic Christian faith.” As outlined in their one for Christians. Here I would like to present
mission statem ent, their primary epistemology— my notes for the debate, which readers might find
their core way of knowing—is that “we believe sen­ useful in their own debates and personal conversa­
sible reality (i.e., general revelation) is the first truth tions with Christians. I made similar comments in
man comes to know via his intellect. This knowl­ a 2013 debate on the problem of evil at Pepperdine
edge is then combined with, and provides the tools University (sponsored by the Veritas Forum) with
for properly understanding, authoritative special Dr. John Lennox, which you can watch here:
revelation given by God (i.e., the Bible).” https: //bit.ly/2tJyhZI

Let’s start with the problem of evil itself, as outlined In brief, the following three conditions are
in the Stanford Encyclopedia o f Philosophy (https: 11 incompatible:
Stanford. io/2g6WF QF):
1. God is Omnipotent (all powerful)
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omnis­ 2. God is Omnibenevolent (all good)
cient, and morally perfect. 3. Evil Exists
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power
to eliminate all evil. That is:
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when 1. If God is all powerful, can He not prevent evil
evil exists. from existing?
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the de­ 2. If God is all good, should He not prevent evil
sire to eliminate all evil. from existing?
5. Evil exists. 3. If evil exists, then either God is not all power­
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God ful or not all good.
doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or
doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have The problem of evil is as old as philosophy itself,
the desire to eliminate all evil. first articulated by Epicurus in around 300
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. BCE:

42 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE 24 num ber 2 2019

 • Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? tion to traditional theism.” Let’s consider examples
Then he is not omnipotent. of evil. According to UNICEF, about 29,000 chil­
• Is he able, but not willing? Then he is dren under the age of five die every day, mainly
malevolent. from preventable causes. That’s 21 dead children
• Is he both able and willing? Then whence each minute, 10.6 million a year, the equivalent of
cometh evil? the Holocaust (including non-Jewish victims).
• Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call More than 70 percent of the 10.6 million child
him God? deaths every year are attributable to six causes: di­
Several solutions to the problem of evil come to mind: arrhoea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia,
preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth.
1. God is all powerful but evil.
Science’s response to this evil is that these are
2. God is all good but not all powerful so he can­
all preventable deaths, and people like Bill Gates
not prevent evil.
are using the best science, technology, and medi­
3. God is neither all powerful nor all good, so evil
cine to do just that.
exists.
Religion’s response to this evil is that these are
My solution to this problem is simple: There is no all part of “God’s Plan.”
God! Really? What sort of God would make a plan
I agree with the Oxford Companion to Philoso­ like this? An all powerful, all good god? Or a less-
phy, which concludes that the problem of how a than-powerful, not so good god? Or no god at all?
good and loving God can allow evil to afflict its cre­ The belief that what these children need is sal­
ations “has always been the most powerful objec­ vation from Jesus is somewhere between absurd and

volume 24 number 2 2019 W W W.SKEPTIC.COM 43

 obscene. What these children need is potable water, “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible
vitamins, vaccinations, mosquito nets, antibacterial dragon.”
drugs, toilets, sanitation systems, etc., not Jesus. You propose spreading flour on the floor of the
The problem of evil for Christians is what I call garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.
the Irrefutable God Problem: “Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in
the air.”
1. When good things happen, who gets the Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the
credit? God. invisible fire.
2. When bad things happen, who gets the blame? “Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heat­
Not God! less.”
You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her
So.. .no matter what happens, the God hypoth­
visible.
esis is confirmed. What would disconfirm the God
“Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon
hypothesis? Good things happen so God is. Bad
and the paint won’t stick.”
things happen so God is. What would have to hap­
pen to refute this causal explanation of evil? In the And so on. I counter every physical test
Christian worldview, nothing can refute it. It is ir­ you propose with a special explanation of why
refutable—true by assertion, and as Christopher it won’t work.
Hitchens said, “that which can be asserted without Now, what’s the difference between an in­
evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” visible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits
My friend Sam Harris has articulated the heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no
inanity of such beliefs when put into context. For way to disprove my contention, no conceivable
example, “If you believe that your granola is the experiment that would count against it, what
body of Christ and the milk is his blood.. .you’re in­ does it mean to say that my dragon exists?
sane. But if you think a cracker is the body of Christ Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is
and the wine is his blood.. .you’re just a Catholic.” not at all the same thing as proving it true.
Similarly, and with more dire consequences, if you Claims that cannot be tested, assertions im­
claim to talk to God and he told you to go invade mune to disproof are veridically worthless,
Afghanistan and Iraq, you’re the President of the whatever value they may have in inspiring us
United States, George W. Bush. But if you were the or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m
President and you claimed to talk to God through asking you to do comes down to believing, in
your hairdryer, a national emergency would be de­ the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
clared. “I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer
The analogy with the Irrefutable God Problem is
makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.”
clear:
Here I insert what I call Sagan’s Dragon, a
thought experiment Carl Sagan presents in his 1996 What’s the difference between an invisible and
book The Demon-Haunted World to illustrate the irrefutable God and a nonexistent God? None!
necessity of falsifiability in order to attain reliable Arguing along these lines is like playing baseball...
knowledge (an example Sagan attributes to the psy­ w ithout the b ases.. .or the ball.
chologist Richard Franklin). I usually just tell the
story in my own words, but here I will allow Carl to * * *
articulate the argument:

“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage” The problem of evil is related to what I call the
Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Witch Theory of Causality: If your theory of evil is
Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. that your neighbor cavorts with the devil at night,
There have been innumerable stories of dragons flies around on a broom inflicting people, crops,
over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an and cattle with disease, and that the proper way to
opportunity! cure the problem of evil is to burn her at the stake,
“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. then you are either insane or you lived in Christian
You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, Europe 400 years ago when nearly everyone be­
an old tricycle—but no dragon. lieved this. Worse, people act on their beliefs, mis­
“Where’s the dragon?” you ask. taken as they may be, and this (in part) is why we
“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. end up with genocides, such as the witch crazes

44 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE volume 24 number 2 2019

that afflicted Europe for centuries. As I explained fish rise and fall and what we can do to prevent a re­
the logic in my 2015 book The Moral Arc: gion being fished out or decimated by disease or cli­
mate change. Psychologists specializing in marital
If you—and everyone around you including ecclesi­
counseling can explain why a wife might not be as
astical and political authorities—truly believe that
responsive as her husband may wish (and vice
witches cause disease, crop failures, sickness, catas­
versa); and though there may not be a big call for
trophes, and accidents, then it is not only a rational
this sort of thing these days, psychologists who
act to burn witches, it is a moral duty. This is what
study personality and temperament could explain
Voltaire meant when he wrote that people who be­
why some princes are cold and distant while others
lieve absurdities are more likely to commit atroci­
are warm and connected to their subjects. Statisti­
ties. An even more pertinent translation of his
cians and risk analysts can assess the rates of failure
famous quote is relevant here: “Truly, whoever is
and misfortune that might befall anyone at any time
able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust.”
in relation to any number of activities of life, well
The problem can be explained by a famous captured in the ne plus ultra of pop-culture, bumper-
thought experim ent that reveals the underlying sticker philosophy—“Shit Happens.”
logic behind such barbarous acts:
Yet, the current Christian theory of evil on the
Consider a popular thought experiment and how offing is, in principle, no different from the w itch
you would respond in the following scenario: You theory of evil, w hich goes som ething like this:
are standing next to a fork in a railroad line and a —Bad things happen because of the “Fall”
switch to divert a trolley car that is about to kill five in the G arden of Eden and the “original sin”
workers on the track unless you throw the switch we are born w ith because we have fallen away
and divert the trolley down a side track where it will from God. Thus, we are free to sin and do evil,
kill one worker. Would you throw the switch to kill and Satan is real and still operates in the
one but save five? Most people say that they would. world.
We should not be surprised, then, that our medieval —The solution to this evil is to accept the
ancestors performed the same kind of moral calcu­ sacrifice of the deity, w hich exonerates you
lation in the case of witches. Medieval witch-burn­ from anything you did in your life, no m atter
ers torched women primarily out of a utilitarian how evil it might have been.
calculus—better to kill the few to save the many. —This makes Christianity a cult of hum an
Other motives were present as well, of course, in­ sacrifice. But instead of the sacrifice of chil­
cluding scapegoating, the settling of personal dren or beasts of burden as practiced by prim i­
scores, revenge against enemies, property confisca­ tive religions, the updated 2.0 version is the
tion, the elimination of marginalized and powerless sacrifice of one child—the son of God.
people, and misogyny and gender politics. But these
were secondary incentives grafted on to a system al­ This leads to what I call... The Identity Crisis Problem:
ready in place that was based on a faulty under­ 1. We w ere originally created sinless, but because
standing of causality. God gave us free will and Adam and Eve chose
This C h ristian th eo ry of evil, in fact, is to eat the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of
grounded in scripture, to w it Exodus 22:18: “Thou good and evil, we are all born w ith original sin.
2. God being om nipotent and om nibenevolent
shalt not suffer a w itch to live.” Today, no one in
their right m ind believes this. Why? Because sci­ could just forgive the sins we never com m it­
ence debunked the w itch theory of evil. As I ex­ ted, b u t instead He sacrificed his son Jesus,
plained in The Moral Arc: w ho is actually just him self in the flesh b e­
cause C hristians believe in only one god—
We know that crops can fail due to disease, which m on o th eism —of w hich Jesus and th e Holy
we study through the science of agronomy and the Spirit are just different manifestations, 3 in 1,1
etiology of disease; or they fail due to insects that in 3.
we can investigate through the science of entomol­ 3. The only way to avoid eternal punishm ent for
ogy and further control through chemistry; or they sins we never com m itted from this all-power­
fail due to inclement weather that we can under­ ful and all-loving God is to accept his son—
stand through the science of meteorology. Ecolo­ who is actually him self—as our savior.
gists and biologists can tell us why populations of 4. S o ... God sacrificed h im se lf... to h im se lf.. .to

volume 24 number 2 2019 W W W.SKEPTIC.COM 45

 save us from.. .himself. If someone made this something “evil” does not lead us to a deeper under­
argument in a different context we would con­ standing of the cause of evil behavior.
sider him barking mad! If there were no humans there would be no
evil. Earthquakes that kill people are not, in and of
And if you don’t accept the logic of this propo­
themselves, evil. A shift between two tectonic
sition, you get to spend forever in hell, your flesh
plates that causes the earth to make a sudden and
seared by fire for all eternity. Why? Because God
dramatic movement cannot possibly be considered
loves you! Jesus himself said (John 15:6): “If a man
evil outside the effects such an earthquake might
abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
have on the humans living near the fault line.
withered; and men gather them, and cast them into
It is the effects of the earthquake on our fellow
the fire, and they are burned.”
humans that we judge to be evil. Evil as a physical
In other words, “believe in me or else... ”
concept requires human evaluation of a behavior
and its effects on humans. As such, bacterial dis­
* * * eases cannot be inherently evil. By causing humans
to sneeze, cough, vomit, and have diarrhea, bacte­
In addition to explaining specific acts of evil that ria are highly successful organisms, spreading
refuted the Witch Theory of Causality—such as themselves far and wide. As their human hosts we
earthquakes, tsunamis, plagues, and accidents—sci­ may label the effects of a disease as evil, but the dis­
ence also gives us a more cogent understanding of ease itself has no moral existence. Good and evil
evil itself, which I outlined in my 2003 book The are human constructs.
Science o f Good and Evil. What science tells us is
that the religious supernatural theory of evil is * * *
false. It’s a myth. It’s what I call The Myth of Pure
Evil. The myth of pure evil is the belief that evil ex­
At the end of my conversation with Dr. Huffling I
ists separately from individuals, or that evil exists
told him “I’d like to steel man your argument but I
within people as something like what we tradition­
honestly have no idea what your position is. Can
ally think of as an evil “force,” driving them to per­
you just explain to me please, why God does not
form evil acts. Evil as a noun implies an existence
cure childhood leukemia? These innocent children
all its own, as in an “evil force” or even an “evil per­
suffer horribly and the lives of their parents are in
son,” or “the force in nature that governs and gives
agony forever at the loss of their children. God
rise to wickedness and sin,” or “the wicked or im­
could intervene. Why doesn’t he?” Huffling’s an­
moral part of someone or something,” and so on in
swer: “I don’t know.”
its dictionary form.
From my perspective, if you don’t know, if the
In this latter sense I claim that there is no such
only answer—no matter how loaded with philo­
thing as evil. There is no supernatural force operat­
sophical jargon it is—comes down to “God works in
ing outside the realm of the known laws of nature
mysterious ways” and “who can understand God?”,
and human behavior that we can call evil. Calling
you don’t have a case. The only logical conclusion
something or someone “evil” gets us nowhere. It
is, as far as I can see (and I’ve read all the argu­
leads to no greater understanding. In a scientific
ments trying to square the circle of evil), there ei­
sense it is a term ultimately indefinable. That is,
ther is no God, or there are multiple Gods (some
there is no way to establish quantifiable criteria by
good, some evil), or the God of process theology is
which we may distinguish between something or
true and God simply cannot do anything about evil
someone that is “evil” or “not evil,” or shades of evil
as it is not yet in his power to act.
in between. The tendency to use the term at all
Thus ended the conversation, followed by a
comes from our Western Platonic tendency to think
lively Q&A. A few days later, on February 26, the
in terms of essences, or non-changing “things” or
host of the evening, Adam Tucker, expressed to my
“types” that are what they are by their very nature.
lecture agent (who booked the event) his mild frus­
Analogously, evil is not a fixed entity or essence.
tration with the evening, hoping I would have been
It is not a thing. Evil is a descriptive term for a range
more philosophical in my approach. I responded:
of environmental events and human behaviors that
we describe and interpret as bad, wrong, awful, un­ I understand you were less than satisfied with the
desirable, or whatever appropriately descriptive ad­ outcome of the debate/dialogue. So was I. Part of
jective or synonym for evil is chosen. To call the problem, I think, is the inherent difference

46 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE volume 24 number 2 2019

 between the cognitive styles of a philosopher versus questions. But, such questions were not the ques­
a scientist. While philosophy provides the founda­ tions up for debate. As Dr. Huffling demonstrated,
tional structure of all science, and scientists must such questions can remain unanswered and have no
reason logically and learn how to do so from philos­ bearing on whether or not God exists. There is no
ophy, ultimately we demand empirical evidence, logical connection between the two issues.
concrete examples, and testable hypotheses—“con­ Moreover, as a skeptic and agnostic I would
jecture and refutation” as the great philosopher of think you would appreciate an honest answer of “I
science Karl Popper described it. don’t know.” As I mentioned above, God’s nature as
This is why I kept pressing my case with exam­ Pure Goodness Itself, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.
ples of evil from the real world and how scientists is arrived at via independent argumentation apart
think about it, and why Brian kept pressing philo­ from the problem of evil. To simply say, “Well, that’s
sophical arguments grounded in definitions and syl­ not what I would do if I were God,” is the one thing
logisms. In a way we were talking past each other, we cannot say! We would have to be all-knowing in
although I feel that I made a very strong case that order to remotely know what we would do if we
the problem of evil is a very serious one for belief in were all-knowing, which is obviously impossible in
the Christian God—not necessarily a knockout principle. Therefore, admitting we don’t know why
punch, but certainly one that puts the Christian re­ God allows specific evils is in no way a defeater of,
ligion on its heels. or even evidence against, the fact that God exists.
To my surprise, I received a thoughtful and A simple example should suffice to illustrate
well-articulated response from Adam, which I think the point. My oldest son was born with one func­
well summarizes the problem of evil and a response tioning kidney. When he was two, we had to go to
to it from a Christian perspective, so I include it the hospital for a test where they run dye through
here: his system to make sure everything is functioning
properly. They strapped him horizontally to a board,
As Dr. Huffling pointed out, and as you seemed to
poked him for 45 minutes trying to start an IV line,
admit in the debate, if God exists then He is not the
and then proceeded with the test. All the while, he
kind of thing for which empirical evidence is directly
was sweating, crying, and looking at me standing
available or for which empirical science applies. The
beside of him with eyes that said, “Dad, why don’t
question of God’s existence is necessarily a philo­
you stop this?!” It’s was heartbreaking and brings
sophical one. To continue to demand empirical evi­
tears to my eyes to recall. Yet, I knew something he
dence is simply question begging and illogical along
didn’t know and understood things about his body
the lines of the man who says plastics and other non-
that he didn’t understand. I knew this was ulti­
metallic materials don’t exist because they can’t be
mately for his good.
detected by his metal detector. We have to use the
Now, given classical theism, my example is not
proper tools for the job. Hand-waiving and mischar-
as simplistic as you may be thinking it is. That is,
acterizing metaphysics comes across, again, as ques­
this is not just a God-knows-more-than-me kind of
tion begging and not very thoughtful. Not to
thing. My point is that, the difference in our knowl­
mention, your demand for empirical evidence and
edge and God’s knowledge is not even the same
testability is based on your own philosophical as­
kind of difference as that between me and my then
sumptions and not scientific reasons.
two-year-old. God does not have more knowledge
The question of the debate was whether or not than us. His knowledge is equal to His unlimited
the reality of evil is good evidence against the Chris­ being, meaning that God just is His knowledge. The
tian God. As Dr. Huffling pointed out, we have nu­ difference in my knowledge and God’s knowledge is
merous independent arguments for the existence of a difference of quality, not merely quantity. I could
God which necessarily conclude in God having a never learn enough to approach God’s knowledge.
certain nature. These are positive arguments for He doesn’t learn, or form syllogisms, etc. He just
God and not remotely God of the gaps arguments as knows in His eternal now. Therefore, if I’m able to
you mischaracterize them (I think you know this, know that the current pain of my two year old is for
but mischaracterizing them plays better to a debate his good even though he didn’t understand that,
audience). Given these arguments, the reality of evil how much more is God able to draw good out of our
is evaluated in light of our knowledge that a good current evils suffered, whether or not we ever know
God exists. Certainly questions of why God allows or understand the reason why?
certain evils to occur are important and difficult Our not knowing does not mean there is no

volume 24 number 2 2019 WWW.SKEPTIC.COM 47

 reason. And our not knowing in no way invalidates ber recounting his heart-cure miracle, I countered
our arguments for God’s existence. To maintain oth­ with the example of Shirdi Sai Baba, the Indian spir­
erwise is simply to hold to an illogical position that itual guru, saint, and fakir who many millions of
results in a non-sequitur. Hindu and Muslim followers believe is the incarna­
tion of Lord Shiva. People attest with powerful an­
Given the cogency of Adam’s reply 1 thought it deserved a
ecdotes as emotive as those of Christians that he can
response, which I sent him the same day, reprinted here:
levitate, read minds, perform exorcisms, cure the
First, how do you know how much God knows, or dying, and even raise the dead. And yet these mira­
even that God is omniscient? You don’t. It’s an asser­ cles don’t merit even a mention in Christian circles,
tion. And as Christopher Hitchens said, “What can save to denounce them as false miracles. Well, how
be asserted without evidence can be dismissed with­ do you know they’re false? What criteria can be ap­
out evidence.” Therein lies the problem, as we’ve plied to tell the difference between true Christian
both expressed: you have no evidence whatsoever miracles performed by Yahweh and fake miracles
for any of this as it is a purely philosophical argu­ performed by con men like Sai Baba? If there is no
ment. The tools of philosophy are a start, but they test, then the default position should be skepticism:
don’t take us far enough. We need science to make assume none of them are real unless and until an
sure we haven’t reasoned our way down a rabbit unmistakeable miracle can be performed and wit­
hole. It’s one thing to argue... nessed by anyone, such as growing a limb back on
an amputee. If God can cure cancer, surely he can
“All bachelors are unmarried men / Socrates is
grow a limb; even salamanders can do that.
a bachelor = Socrates is an unmarried man”.
What about Revelation? You give it pride of
It is quite another thing to argue... place as your chief tool of knowledge, right on the
home page of Southern Evangelical Seminary
“The universe had a beginning / all beginnings have
(SES)! Whose revelation? Moses? Jeanne d’Arc?
a cause / there has to be a first-cause that is un­
Jesus? Joseph Smith? Muhammed? Jim Jones? Osama
caused / That un-caused causer is God / INSERT 20
bin Laden? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? So many prophets
MORE STEPS HERE = Jesus died for your sins and
and revelations and no way to test which ones we
helped cure your aunt’s heart murmur."
should accept as reliable and which ones as unreliable.
Further, you seem to be saying that there is no Why, for example, do you accept the revelations of
philosophical foundation for why empirical evi­ Moses and Jesus, but not those of these other
dence and testability matter in establishing reliable prophets? What standard measure should we apply to
knowledge. Well, are you asking me for evidence determine reliability in this case? In the Q&A your di­
that evidence matters? How about “it works”! Evi­ rector argued that Jesus’ disciples would never have
dence and testability may be philosophical assump­ sacrificed their lives if Jesus was not really resur­
tions, but they’re good assumptions because they rected. First of all, throughout history lots of people
work to establish reliable knowledge. Do vaccinations have sacrificed their lives for leaders, tribes, nations,
work? Yes, they do. How do we know? Evidence. ideologies, and religions. Examples are legion: Jim
Testability. Experimentation. Epidemiological Jones’s followers. David Koresh’s followers. Joseph
studies. In other words, Science! The result: Chil­ Smith’s followers. Marxist revolutionaries in the 20th
dren who no longer die of communicable diseases, century. Islamic extremists in the 21st century. Jeanne
unless their criminally negligent anti-vaxxer par­ d’Arc’s armies of followers during the Hundred Years
ents refuse to vaccinate them, in which case War. I know, these examples all differ from the Jesus
they’re only protected because they’re surrounded saga, but they differ from one another too! The deeper
by vaccinated children (until the herd immunity of point is that each of these groups of followers believed
~9o% is broken, in which case outbreaks can and that theirs was the One True belief and that all the
do happen). others are false beliefs.
By contrast, what does religion offer in the way
of reliable knowledge? Nothing! Prayer? It doesn’t At this point in the dialogue Dr. Huffling sug­
work. All scientific attempts to test the efficacy of gested that perhaps we could have an exchange in
prayer have failed to produce any results. What you print, so I invited him to respond to this article
have are anecdotes, and anecdotes 4 data. When and exchange above, starting w ith my debate en d ­
Brian said there is some evidence of miracles, which ing q uestion: why doesn’t God cure childhood
was followed up in the Q&A with an audience mem­ leukemia? Q

48 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE volume 24 number 2 2019

Copyright of Skeptic is the property of Skeptics Society and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.