The Problem of Evil
Noor Aftab
I. Introduction People of the Abrahamic religions believe in God. In their view, God created everything, can destroy it, knows everything, and loves everyone. In other words, God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnibenevolent (all good). This creates a problem; if God is all good then He would do everything in his power to stop evil, and if God is all powerful then He could prevent all evil. However, evil exists. So, how can a religious person reconcile the existence of a good God with the existence of evil in the world? This is the problem of evil. In this paper I will introduce the term evil and give real world examples related to this problem. Next, I will explore how the problem of evil poses a challenge to Abrahamic religions. Lastly, I will introduce the term theodicy, give four theodicies, and conclude with an argument that I find most convincing. II. The Nature of Evil Evil comes in many forms: disease, poverty, natural disasters, war, death, and more. Evil can be classified as natural evil or moral evil. Evil occuring due to natural causes without human interference would be considered natural evil, whereas evil inflicted by humans would be considered moral evil. The distinction, however, is not always straightforward. Recently the global COVID-19 pandemic spread throughout the world and was the cause of death for over 7 million people. Although the disease originated in animals, making it somewhat a natural evil, humans may bear some of the responsibility. As conscious and intelligent beings, we have the capacity to avoid unsanitary conditions and respect the boundaries of animals’ habitats—factors that contributed to the emergence of COVID-19. Many natural evils are partially a result of human interference with the natural world. Environmental damage—such as carbon emission or deforestation—has contributed to natural disasters we perceive as natural evils. On the other hand, genocide is an example of clear moral evil. For example, the Holocaust of the Jews or the mass suffering of the people of Gaza. These events, unlike COVID-19, were carried out by humans. The problem of evil applies to Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) particularly because of their belief in a God with all three qualities: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. God cannot be all good if He does evil and if the reason He does evil cannot be explained then He is not all good. Yet Christians, Muslims, and Jews still believe in God. Interestingly, religions like that of the Ancient Greeks and the Vikings believed that the Gods were not all good and therefore the problem of evil does not apply to them. For example, Zeus, the Greek God of the sky, took away fire from humans when He was angry. Many people try to defend the existence of God despite the problem of evil. A Theodicy is an argument that attempts to answer this problem of evil and justify the existence of God that has all three characteristics. There are many theodicies, but I will focus on four of them: the free will theodicy, the punishment theodicy, the building character theodicy, and the incomplete world theodicy. III. Analyzing Theodicies The first theodicy is God's punishment theodicy. Some argue that the suffering or evil that is God’s responsibility is punishment from God. Or that people who suffer deserve to suffer. One analogy is parenting. Parents punish their children when they misbehave to show them there are consequences for their bad behavior. The same goes for God. In order to keep us on a straight path, God punishes us when we do wrong. However, a criticism of this is that it does not explain why some people who are innocent suffer. For example there have been floods, storms, and earthquakes that have killed babies. Babies have not done wrong in their life yet, but they are still punished. A defense for this is that God may have known these babies would grow up to be bad. However this defense has two problems. For one, is it okay to punish someone before they have committed a crime? Preemptive punishment denies a person the right to choose a different action. It treats the potential wrongdoing as if it were already real. Secondly, on what basis does God let some bad people exist and others not? For example Joseph Stalin who killed millions of people died at age 74 after living a long life. This does not seem fair. The second theodicy is suffering can help build character. This reminds me of the line “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” Or in other words, God knows what is best for us and some suffering may be what is best. However a lot of the times suffering does not build character and in fact does the opposite. A good example are veterans who suffer from PTSD. These veterans are haunted for the rest of their lives. It doesn’t seem to be the case then, that suffering always makes us better people. Another example is that kids who are raised in abusive households often become bullies. This suffering does not seem to benefit anyone. A third theodicy could be called the incomplete world. It states, the world we currently live in is temporary or limited. After death, life continues in the form of heaven and hell. Those who have suffered in this world would be made whole by gaining reward and pleasure in the next world. They would go to heaven. Conversely, those who committed atrocities would receive their punishment. They would go to hell. So people like Joseph Stalin who may have not faced punishment for what they did in this life will face it in the next. This theodicy allows for a just God that is all powerful, and at the end of the day allows good to prevail and evil to be abolished. Pierre Bayle, among others, criticized this theodicy by comparing God in this case to a king who permitted a deadly uprising just to show his ability to stop it. This does not seem like a good God. A counterargument to this is that Bayle is misrepresenting the theodicy. The point is not for God to show his ability, rather it is to allow human freedom and still provide justice at the end of the day. Tying into the idea of human freedom, the last theodicy is about free will. Free will is being in control of our own lives. To ensure we have free will, God had to allow an imperfect world with suffering and evil. If people choose to murder, God believes it is more valuable for them to have free will than for Him to intervene. Free will is important because it allows us to be responsible for our actions. In The Complete Philosophy Files, Stephen Law points out that without free will humans would just be robots or machines because they would not be able to choose to act otherwise. In other words, evil must exist for there to be free will. However, there are a few reasons as to why the free will theodicy is not very convincing. The first objection to this argument is that it does not account for natural evil. Free will has nothing to do with an earthquake that kills millions of people, so God should intervene. A defense to this is that humans can choose to settle in areas with less seismic activity or create more earthquake resistant homes. However, in reality, most people who live in earthquake zones around the world can not afford better housing and do not have the luxury to move elsewhere. Or philosophers ask why He did not just create a world without natural evil in the first place. A defense from theists is that natural evil is somewhat our fault as well. In The Philosophy Gym, Stephen Law explains that it is hard to see how we could accidentally cause an earthquake. So at least some suffering or evil must be God’s responsibility. Another objection is the Heaven dilemma. Heaven is meant to be a better place than Earth. If this is the case then one of two things must be true. We have free will in Heaven, which would mean evil does not have to exist for free will to exist. Or, we do not have free will in Heaven which means a world with free will is not necessarily a better world. Another way to look at this problem is by arguing that some evil allows for the flourishing of good. For example, for there to be generosity there has to be poverty. For there to be empathy there has to be suffering. For there to be mercy there has to be wrongdoing. Furthermore, in order for humans to be moral agents there must be good and evil in the world. If the quality “all good" is interpreted in a way that allows for temporary evil before long-term justice and divine mercy as seen in the incomplete theodicy, then God could still have characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. This perspective aligns with my own understanding of the issue. IV. Conclusion The problem of evil is a complex issue and has been discussed for centuries. To understand it, one must consider both natural and moral evil. The problem poses a significant challenge to Abrahamic religions but can be tackled through theodicies. Although no theodicy is without its criticisms, I argue that redefining the characteristic of omnibenevolence can help solve the problem.
VII. Bibliography
Law, Stephen. The Complete Philosophy Files. London , UK: Orion Children’s Books, 2000.
Law, Stephen. The Philosophy Gym. London , UK: REVIEW, 2003.
Donaldson, Tom, and Stephen Stich. “Why Does God Leave Us to Suffer.” Essay. In Philosophy: Asking Questions-Seeking Answers, 59–76. New York City , New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.