The Problem of Evil - Philosophy of Religion

Spec Requires:

  • different presentations
  • theodicies that propose some justification or reason for divine action or interaction in the face of evil

Key Terms:

  • Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent
  • 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 by non-human agencies, for example, the occurrence of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions
  • Moral Evil: evil and suffering caused by a deliberate misuse of human free will, for example, murder, stealing, lying
  • Privatio Boni: A phrase used by AUGUSTINE to mean the absence of goodness
  • Free Will: The ability to make independent choices
  • Epistemic Distance: A distance in knowledge and understanding (There is an epistemic distance between humans and God)

The Logical Problem of Evil:

Evil is a problem for a believer because it challenges the nature of God so it is, therefore, a logical problem. It is believed that God is all-powerful and all-loving, yet evil exists.
How can God be omnipotent and not stop evil?
How can God be all-loving and not want to stop evil?

The logical problem is often attributed to the Greek thinker, EPICURUS in the third century. Epicurus questioned God and the problem of evil: 'Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able to? Is he able, but not willing?'

The best-known modern component of the logical form of this argument is J.L. MACKIE's Inconsistent Triad. There are three proposals we are asked to accept:

  1. that God is perfectly good
  2. that God is all-powerful
  3. that evil and suffering exists
    The 'triad' of three ideas is 'inconsistent' because we cannot believe in all these proposals without contradiction which is where the logical fallacy lies.

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 of experience or evidence, that the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God is logically inconsistent with the existence of evil.

The Evidential Problem of Evil:

This argument is a posteriori as it draws conclusions from the observation and evidence of our experience: our own suffering, wrongdoings and loss which juxtaposes against the logical problem of evil.

Is the hypothesis for the problem of evil is that there is an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God at work, perhaps with a plan that excuses evil, a plausible explanation for our experiences? Or alternatively, does God not have the characteristics traditionally attributed to him, or is there no God at all?

JOHN STUART MILL argues that the natural world is full of evidence of natural evil, and he gives compelling examples of the many ways in which people and other animals suffer. He argues that the evidence of nature and our suffering does not indicate a loving and good creator but one who is sadistic. Mill, therefore, does not support the argument that evidence shows a living and all-powerful creator. This goes against supporters of teleological arguments such as WILLIAM PALEY. who claimed that we only need to look at the world around us to conclude that it must have been made by the power of God who cares about us. Mill criticises this by stating the evidence shows nothing of the kind.

Responses to the problem of evil state that:

  • perhaps evil is part of a 'big picture' or 'God's plan' and that evil should not be taken at face value
  • some suffering shows teaches us to learn from our mistakes
  • suffering and evil creates a distinction and appreciation for the good
  • suffering could be a result of previsous actions of people i.e. a form of punishment

Evidence for the problem of evil includes Natural evil, moral evil, and suffering. e.g. why do animals eat other animals in order to survive? What is the reason for such extreme examples of evil and suffering to occur? What could possibly make up for the evil and suffering in the world?
DOSTOYEVSKY says: 'If suffering is needed to buy truth...the whole truth is not worth such a price.'

Augustine's Theodicy:

AUGUSTINE disagreed with the thinkings of PLATO, that everything in the physical world was an imperfection reflection of the Idea Forms. Due to Augustine being a Christian, he did not believe that God could make anything imperfect, especially as the creation stories in the Bible confirmed that 'God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.'

When Augustine sought to answer the problem of how an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God could exist given the evil in the world. His response was to rule out the possibility that God had made evil. Instead, he came to the conclusion that evil is not a real, actual quality in its own right. It is what he called 'a privatio boni,' a lack of the good.

In Augustine's view, evil first came into the world through the 'Fall' of the angels. Augustine saw the story of the 'Fall' as a central understanding of why humans have an absence of good in themselves. Adam and Evil lived in a 'state of perfection' but the rebellion of the angels who disobeyed God lead them to 'fall' from heaven and consequently, resulted in Original Sin. The angels, therefore, misused their free will and fell from God's grace and so the harmony of creation and relationship between God and humanity was disrupted when Eve disobeyed God's command in the Garden of Eden. Overall, all evil in the world stems from these acts of disobedience.

For Augustine, all evil is either sin or punishment from Original Sin committed by Eve. In modern times, Augustine's theodicy is described as soul-deciding. We have to decide whether or not to obey God.

The theodicy of Irenaeus:

Irenaeus' argument was that God allows evil and suffering to gave place in the world and that the world was deliberately created with a mixture of goodness and evil, so that we can develop and grow as human beings into a mature and free relationship with God. Irenaeus argued that there had to be evil in the world, for us to appreciate the good. For Augustine, evil was seen as a punishment, whereas Irenaeus saw it as an opportunity to grow and thrive.

He also argued that we have to have evil in the world in order to develop as free individuals who make their own moral decisions and take responsibility for them. Augustine's theodicy claims that humanity was created perfect, but fell away from God through the misuse of free will. This sin was the cause of suffering throughout the natural world.

According to Irenaeus and others, such as JOHN HICK and RICHARD SWINBURNE, who have developed their own Irenaean theodicies, when God made people in his own 'image,' this has to include the concept of free will. Irenaeus drew a distinction between God's image and God's likeliness. He believed that God made us in his own image but we had to grow into his likeliness. In God's imagem we have the freedom of choice and act as moral agents. As IMMANUEL KANT was to argue in the eighteenth centurty, we can only act act morally if we have freedom of choice. So evil is part of a process, not just in our lifetime, but over the whole course of human history.

The Irenaean theodicy, and other theodicies that follow a similar line of argument, are often known as 'free will theodicies' because of their claim that evil is a necessary result of having the freedom to choose.