The Problem of Evil

Pocket handbook of

Christian ApologeticsPeter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli

Consider the following propositions:1. God exists2. God is all good3. God is all powerful4. Evil existsIf we accept and affirm the first three then it would seem we have to deny the fourth;- if God exists, wills only good, and is powerful enough to get all he wills, then there would be no evil.

- if God exists, wills only good, but evil exists, then God does not get what he wills. Thus he is not all powerful- if God exists, and he is all powerful and evil exists too, then God wills evil to exist. Thus he is not all good.- Finally if “God” means “a being that is all good and all powerful” and yet evil still exists, then such a God does not exist.

Five possible solutions

1. Atheism is the denial of proposition 1, that God exists.2. Pantheism is the denial of proposition 2, that God is good and not evil

Five possible solutions

1. Atheism is the denial of proposition 1, that God exists.2. Pantheism is the denial of proposition 2, that God is good and not evil

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". Within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.In Pantheism, God is identical with the universe, but in Panentheism God lies within and also beyond or outside of the universe.

3. Modern naturalism and ancient polytheism both deny proposition 3, that God is all powerful.Ancient polytheism limited God’s power by splitting God up into many little “gods” some of which were evil.Modern naturalism, such as process theology, does the same by reducing God to being of time, growth, imperfection, weakness and limitation.

4. Idealism here is the denial of real evil - seen in Advaita Hinduism, Christian science and much New Age thinking, all of which say evil is an illusion produced by unenlightened thinking.

5. Finally, traditional theism, including orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam, affirm all four propositions and deny any logical contradiction. This can be done only if there are some ambiguous terms.

5. Finally, traditional theism, including orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam, affirm all four propositions and deny any logical contradiction. This can be done only if there are some ambiguous terms.

Ambiguous|amˈbigyoōəs|

- (of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning- unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made

5. Finally, traditional theism, including orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam, affirm all four propositions and deny any logical contradiction. This can be done only if there are some ambiguous terms.

5. Finally, traditional theism, including orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam, affirm all four propositions and deny any logical contradiction. This can be done only if there are some ambiguous terms.

Customers who think our

waiters are rude should

see the manager

Defining evil

There are 2 common misunderstandings regarding evil;1. It is often associated with a being2. There is confusion between physical and moral evil

If evil is a being then it is an unsolvable problem - for God would have had to make it and is therefore not all good - or God did not make it and therefore he is not the all powerful creator of all things.We should note that things are not evil in themselves - a sword is not evil - it is the intent it is used for that is used to order the use - from there we decide on the action which it was used for.

Augustine defined evil as disordered will, disordered love - a wrong relationship, a non conformity between our will and God’s will. God did not make it we did - we see in Genesis 1 and 3 the stories of God’s good creation and humanities rebellion and fall.

Secondly, we need to distinguish between physical and moral evil - sin and suffering, the evil we actively do and that which we passively suffer - the evil we choose and the evil we are subject to, that which we are responsible for and that which we are not.Two explanations are needed:The origin of sin is human free will. The immediate origin of suffering is nature - e.g. we stub our toe on something or drown in the sea.

Here God cannot be responsible for sin - but what of suffering, can that be traced to sin? Genesis 3 says that there is a direct link. It does not explain how - but it does declare thorns and thistles, pain in child bearing and the sweat of our brow are all the result of sin

Connecting suffering with sin: the Fall

Humans are generally believed to be a psychosomatic unity - that is body and soul - your soul or psyche is your form and your body your matter. Kreeft says it is like a poem where the meaning is the form and the sounds and syllables are the matter.

So if our soul is separated from God by sin our body will suffer too - it will be alienated and experience pain and death as inevitable consequences of sin. Spiritual death and physical death go together as our bodies and soul go together.So we have to ask did the Fall literally take place in human history? What if Gen 3 is not real then it is a fable about sin and Adam and Eve are only symbolic.

2 consequences:1. There was never a time of innocence when God made all things good - so we were made sinners and we can trace that back to God (who is therefore to blame).2. If the Fall is only what we do - then why has no one ever resisted - if there is a choice and everyone chooses the same do you really think there is real freedom?

Kreeft suggests 2 powerful arguments for believing the historicity of Genesis 3.1. Nearly every, tribe, nation, and religion throughout history has a similar story. The idea of paradise having been lost - a time of no evil, suffering or death. Just because all think it doe not make it true - it is simply an indicator - and it then means we can put the need for proof n those who deny such ideas.

2. We need to look at the human condition, namely,A. All people desire perfect happinessB. No one is perfectly happyC. All desire complete certainty and perfect wisdomD. No one is completely certain or perfectly wise.No one has the two things we all want - as if we all ‘remember’ Eden but cannot recapture it. We do not accept how we are but long for another time when things were different.

Kreeft suggests we imagine God as symbolised by a large magnet - 3 iron rings hang from it.Ring 1 represents the soulRing 2 the bodyRing 3 natureWhilst ring 1 (soul) remains in contact with God then all 3 remain attached - if ring 1 loses contact with God all fall. As our soul declares independence from God the whole structure falls apart:

God

Kreeft suggests we imagine God as symbolised by a large magnet - 3 iron rings hang from it.Ring 1 represents the soulRing 2 the bodyRing 3 natureWhilst ring 1 (soul) remains in contact with God then all 3 remain attached - if ring 1 loses contact with God all fall. As our soul declares independence from God the whole structure falls apart:

God- our soul loses contact with our body and also with nature - so all suffers for our authority over nature is delegated by / from God - thus, we reject God and we reject the authority he delegatedAs a conclusion we can see sin and suffering come from man not from God.

Defining “Free Will”Kreeft does this by contrasting it with determinism.Determinism says all we do is accounted for by heredity and environment.Free will then adds a third element to this, an element not determined by heredity.H&E condition our acts but do not determine them - just as paints and a frame do not determine the picture to be painted - they are necessary but not sufficient cause of freely chosen acts.

Kreeft suggests looking at how we use words - praise, blame, command, moralise etc. to each other - would you do those to a robot? Of course not they are not morally responsible. So, if you remove free will from life then all moral meaning disappears from language and life.

One might ask why did God give us free will?Kreeft suggests this is not the right question to ask - after all you give a pony to a child or a polish to a table - but you do not give three sides to a triangle, or free will to a person. Free will is part of the essence of the person - without it they would not be a person - in fact we would consider them a “machine”.

Defining “Omnipotence”Part of the problem of evil is the problem of a God who is all powerful as well as all good. Why didn’t God create a world without sin?Gen 1,2 says he did - the problem of sin was not with God, but with man. And if you then suggest God should have created man without the freedom to sin, then you have to consider this removing love from the world - after all, love is a choice: Love proceeds from free will

But the question is still asked could God have created a world with free will and without sin - the answer is “He did!” the presence of sin is not cased by God but by the choice of men. Our freedom means there was always going to be the possibility of sin - even with an omnipotent God. It would appear to be a contradiction to want a world with free choice (of good or evil) and at the same time no possibility of choosing evil.

Some Christian thinkers suggest God is not limited by anything even the laws of logic - and so they disagree with this position. Kreeft argues that it is not part of God’s nature to perform anything that has a meaningless contradiction. God is consistent within himself, this is the very nature of God.The consequence of this thinking is that even an omnipotent God cannot forcibly prevent sin without removing our free will.

Some Christian thinkers suggest God is not limited by anything even the laws of logic - and so they disagree with this position. Kreeft argues that it is not part of God’s nature to perform anything that has a meaningless contradiction. God is consistent within himself, this is the very nature of God.The consequence of this thinking is that even an omnipotent God cannot forcibly prevent sin without removing our free will.

This “cannot” does not mean that God’s power

has met something greater than it outside of Himself - but, as CS Lewis said, “nonsense does not cease to be

nonsense when we add the words “God can”

before it.

Defining “Goodness”Goodness is more than kindness - for example dentists, surgeons, even football coaches do good work - but it might hurt a bit! God would not be good if good just meant being kind.We might be kind to another persons children whilst having ‘higher’ standards for our own. We kill animals to prevent pain whilst having higher hopes for humans, hence no euthanasia.

God allows suffering and deprives us of some “pleasures” in order that we might receive the higher pleasure of greater good and of spiritual education. (Many have acknowledged that wisdom can come through suffering).Job did not suffer because of his lack of godliness but because God wanted Job to see Him more - supreme happiness - Job 42:5 - in this Job is a paradigm for all of us.All God does is good - so he allows evil to work in us for this - this is like me not doing Dan’s homework for him!

Defining “Happiness”

The shallow modern meaning of happiness is a subjective feeling - you feel happy. It is a temporary phenomenon, it comes and goes. It happens [mainly] by chance and is sourced externally. E.g. Winning at something, bodily excitement, power etc. - not poverty, chastity, obedience.

There is an older deeper meaning to happiness - found in the Greek word eudaimonia - this is an objective state, not subjective feeling. Jesus said you are blessed (objectively happy) even when you mourn (are subjectively unhappy) - Matt 5:4.True happiness is about a lifetime not a moment - it then is under our control, a choice, created by wisdom and virtue (which are good habits not passively received) - and happiness is internal not external, Kreeft suggests it is about a good soul not a good bank account.

God’s providence arranges our life for true happiness at the end - but this might not include shallow, subjective happiness. Some suggests for true happiness to be understood we have to suffer. It is something in the spirit of man not the body or feelings. Such happiness acts as an anchor even when times are stormy. Physical and emotional storms strengthen and harden our anchor.

God’s providence arranges our life for true happiness at the end - but this might not include shallow, subjective happiness. Some suggests for true happiness to be understood we have to suffer. It is something in the spirit of man not the body or feelings. Such happiness acts as an anchor even when times are stormy. Physical and emotional storms strengthen and harden our anchor.

Teresa of Avila said that the most miserable earthly life, seen from

the perspective of heaven, looks like one

night in an inconvenient hotel.

Providence and FreedomHaving defined these five terms we can better understand the relationship of God’s providence and our freedom. Consider this line of reasoning:- God knows all things and his knowledge is eternal- therefore he knows my choice before I make it, so how can I choose anything freely?- freedom must give me the choice of evil or good, but here I do not seem to get any genuine choice

- God appears to have made my choices, and I get none- so if God exists human freedom is impossible- Therefore, God must be the author of sinHow can we respond to such reasoning?1. God’s knowledge being eternal does not mean he determines what you will do. His knowledge is simply not constrained by time (as we are) - God does not change, whilst time does, it moves on - God transcends time.

“God sees in a single and eternal act of vision all our free choices as they really exist, embedded in their times, places and circumstances”2. If God created us to be free then our freedom is a gift - but within this God’s creating and conserving power must be present in all our acts. No freedom we might have can eliminate our need for God - he is the source of all things and he gives being to our freedom.

“God sees in a single and eternal act of vision all our free choices as they really exist, embedded in their times, places and circumstances”2. If God created us to be free then our freedom is a gift - but within this God’s creating and conserving power must be present in all our acts. No freedom we might have can eliminate our need for God - he is the source of all things and he gives being to our freedom.

“Creatures can act on their own in respect to other creatures; but never with respect to the creator. Without God there would be no freedom for us to have. And there would be no “us” to have it.

Kreeft leaves providence and freedom with this comment:“if God really is intimately involved in giving being to our free choices...think what a terrible thing sin must be. God has committed himself to create and sustain those of us who use the gift of freedom to hurt others and to hate God himself.The power of those who drove the nails into the hands and feet of his beloved Son came ultimately from him. If freedom has a terrible price, surely God pays more than his share”

Practical ApplicationIt is important to see evil not just as an argument against God but as a broken relationship, a spiritual divorce. In effect what is required is a practical, not theoretical, answer to the problem of evil.The practical problem involves the guilt and sin produced in us - Christ came to solve this problem.Guilt can only be removed by God - through faith in the atoning wok of Jesus Christ