The Problem of Evil
Key words
Omnipotent: all-powerful
Omniscient: all-knowing
Omnibenevolent: all-good and all-loving
Inconsistent triad: the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God, and the existence of evil in the
world, are said to be mutually incompatible.
Theodicy: an attempt to justify God in the face of evil in the world.
Natural evil: evil and suffering caused by non-human agencies
Moral evil: the evil done and the suffering caused by deliberate misuse of human free will.
Privatio boni: a phrase used by Augustine to mean an absence of goodness
Free will: the ability to make independent choices between real options.
Epistemic distance: a distance in knowledge and understanding
- The problem of evil presents a huge challenge to the monotheistic belief of a God of power and
love.
- People have adopted various arguments in order to address the issues:
• Irenaeus argued that God wants us to learn and to grow in spiritual maturity, and therefore
gave us challenges and hardships to face out of love for us, so that we could become people
who freely choose to have a relationship with him.
• Augustine argued that evil came into a world, which God created as perfect, because some of
the angels made wrong choices, rebelled against God and fell from heaven. They then
corrupted humanity and caused Adam and Eve to sin, which was such a significant event that
it corrupted the whole world and threw it into sin.
• John Hick followed a Irenaean line of thought with his ‘soul-making theodicy’. He argued that
the challenges we face in this world are meant to help us reach a free relationship with God,
and he also believed that this relationship with God is available and inevitable for everyone,
regardless of his or her religious faith.
The problem of evil as a logical problem
- The problem of evil presents a powerful logical challenge to belief in the kind of God described
by Judaism, Christianity and Islam and it goes like this; If there is a God that is omnipotent,
omniscient and omnibenevolent, then why do evil and suffering exist in the world?
- People argue that a wholly good and loving God would want to prevent evil, and if God can do
anything at all because of his power, then he can both eliminate evil and prevent it from
happening. Yet there is clear evidence of evil and suffering in the world. Therefore, the God
described by such religions cannot exist.
- This logical problem is often attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus although his writing
thats have survived do not contain it.
- David Hume refers to it in relation to Epicurus in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:
“Epicurus’ old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he
is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing?
Whence then is evil?”
- The best known modern proponent of the logic form of this argument is J.L.Mackie.
- The problem of evil sometimes makes reference to the ‘inconsistent triad’. There are three
proposals that we are asked to accept:
• That God is perfectly good
• That God is all-powerful
• That evil and suffering exist
- This triad is inconsistent because we cannot believe all three of them at the same time without
contradiction, and that is where the logical issue lies.
- If there is a God who is all powerful, then presumably he could have made any kind of world, or
no world at all. He could have made a world where there is no pain or illness or death. Yet he
, chose not to, or was not able to, which is inconsistent with the claim that he is omnibenevolent
and omnipotent.
- Some people conclude therefore that there cannot be an all-loving, all-powerful God if there is
evil and suffering in the world, on the grounds of logic alone.
- As a logical problem, this argument against the existence of God is a priori. It argues on the
basis of logic alone without the need for experience or evidence, that the existence of an
omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is logically inconsistent with the existence of evil.
The problem of evil as an evidential problem
- As an evidential problem, the argument is a posteriori. It takes the evidence of our experience,
our own suffering, wrongdoing and loss and that which we experience second-hand through
news reports and the experiences of people we know.
- As an a posteriori argument, it asks us to find the best, most plausible explanation for our
observation. Is the explanation that there is an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God at work in the
world (perhaps with a plan that excuses the evil) a plausible explanation for our experiences? Or
are they better explained by some other hypothesis such as that God does not have the
characteristics traditionally attributed to him, or that there is no God at all?
- John Stuart Mill argues that the natural world is full of evidence of evil, and he gives powerful
examples of the many ways in which people and other animals suffer. He argues against those
who use a posteriori arguments in support of the existence of a good God, saying that the
evidence doesn't point to an omnibenevolent creator but one who is sadistic and who behaves in
all the ways that we condemn when we see them in human criminals. “In sober truth, nearly all
the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature’s every-day
performances.”
- Mill’s argument is that the evidence shows that belief in a loving and all-powerful creator is not
supported. He is arguing against supporters of teleological arguments, such as William Paley.
- Mill uses his evidential argument to support the view that, if there is a God, he does not seem to
be at all benevolent. We cannot look to him or to nature as a guide for our own moral behaviour
and he cannot worship him for his goodness.
Responses to the problem of evil: theodicy
- An attempt to justify God in the face of evil and suffering is known as a theodicy. Someone who
presents a theodicy is explaining the reasons why an apparent wrong has happened and
showing that God does not deserve to be blamed.
- The word, first used by philosopher Leibniz comes from two Greek terms, theos, meaning God
and dikē, meaning justice.
- A theodicy therefore is an attempt to justify God and to show that God can still have the
character which is claimed by believers despite the evidence of evil and suffering.
Natural and moral evil
- Moral evil can include suffering caused by humanity’s failure to do good when the opportunity
arises.
- The distinction between natural and moral evil has sometimes been helpful in discussion,
because although some people might want to argue that humanity and not God should be
blamed for the suffering in the world, it is harder to blame humanity for natural evil and perhaps
instances of natural evil require a different explanation.
- However, the distinction is not always helpful. It could be argued that all suffering is the result of
moral evil, especially if the view is taken that the Fall of Adam and Eve was so significant that it
corrupted the whole of the natural order.
- Or it could be argued that all suffering is natural evil, because we are made in such a way that
we can feel mental and physical pain, and if we had been made differently, then perhaps we
would not have had the capacity for suffering.
