Problem of evil 1

Problem of evilIn the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with thatof a deity who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (see theism).[1][2] An argument from evil attempts toshow that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible, and attempts to show the contrary havebeen traditionally known as theodicies.There are a wide range of responses that have been given to the problem of evil. These include the explanation ofevil as the result of free will misused by God's creatures, the view that our suffering is required for personal growth,the denial that God is omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, and skepticism concerning the ability of humansto understand God's reasons for permitting the existence of evil. There are also many discussions of "evil" andassociated "problems" in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics,[3][4][5] and scientific disciplines such asevolutionary ethics.[6][7] But as usually understood, the "problem of evil" is posed in a theological context.[1][2]

Detailed argumentsNumerous different versions of the problem of evil have been formulated.[1][2][8]

Logical problem of evilOne example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil is often attributed to Epicurus[9] and may beschematized as follows:1.1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.2.2. There is evil in the world.3.3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.This argument is of the logically valid form modus tollens. In this case, P is "God exists" and Q is "there is no evil inthe world".Since it is unclear precisely how the antecedent of the first premise of the epicurean argument entails the consequent,later versions have been offered such as:[2]

1.1. God exists.2.2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.3.3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.4.4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.5.5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent

that evil from coming into existence.6.6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from

coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.7.7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.8.8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).Versions such as these are referred to as the logical problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumedpropositions lead to a logical contradiction and cannot therefore all be correct. Most philosophical debate hasfocused on the propositions stating that God cannot exist with, or would want to prevent, all evils (premises No. 3and No. 6), with defenders of theism arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve agreater good.One greater good that has been proposed is that of free will, famously argued for in Plantinga's free will defense. The first part of this defense accounts for moral evil as the result of free human action. The second part of this defense argues for the logical possibility of "a mighty nonhuman spirit"[10] such as Satan who is responsible for so-called

Problem of evil 2

'natural evils', including earthquakes, tidal waves, and virulent diseases. Many philosophers accept that Plantingasuccessfully solves the logical problem of evil,[11], as he appears to have shown that God and evil are logicallycompatible, though others demur[12].

Evidential problem of evil

William L. Rowe's famous example of natural evil: "In some distant forestlightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped,horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its

suffering."[13]

The evidential version of the problem of evil(also referred to as the probabilistic orinductive version), seeks to show that theexistence of evil, although logicallyconsistent with the existence of God, countsagainst or lowers the probability of the truthof theism. As an example, a critic ofPlantinga's idea of "a mighty nonhumanspirit" causing natural evils may concedethat the existence of such a being is notlogically impossible but argue that due tolacking scientific evidence for its existencethis is very unlikely and thus it is anunconvincing explanation for the presenceof natural evils.

A version by William L. Rowe:1.1. There exist instances of intense suffering

which an omnipotent, omniscient beingcould have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

2.2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it couldnot do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2]

Another by Paul Draper:1.1. Gratuitous evils exist.2. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is

a better explanation for (1) than theism.3. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.[14]

These arguments are probability judgments since they rest on the claim that, even after careful reflection, one can seeno good reason for God’s permission of evil. The inference from this claim to the general statement that there existsunnecessary evil is inductive in nature and it is this inductive step that sets the evidential argument apart from thelogical argument.[2]

The logical possibility of hidden or unknown reasons for the existence of evil still exist. However, the existence of God is viewed as any large-scale hypothesis or explanatory theory that aims to make sense of some pertinent facts. To the extent that it fails to do so it is disconfirmed.[2] According to Occam's razor, one should make as few assumptions as possible. Hidden reasons are assumptions, as is the assumption that all pertinent facts can be observed, or that facts and theories humans have not discerned are indeed hidden. Thus, as per Draper's argument above, the theory that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being who is indifferent requires no hidden reasons in order to explain evil. It is thus a simpler theory than one that also requires hidden reasons regarding evil in order to include omnibenevolence. Similarly, for every hidden argument that completely or partially justifies observed evils it is equally likely that there is a hidden argument that actually makes the observed evils worse than they appear

Problem of evil 3

without hidden arguments. As such, from a probabilistic viewpoint hidden arguments will neutralize one another.[1]

Author and researcher Gregory S. Paul offers what he considers to be a particularly strong problem of evil. Pauldescribes conservative calculations that at least 100 billion people have been born throughout human history (startingroughly 50 000 years ago, when Homo Sapiens – humans – first appeared).[15] He then performed what he calls"simple" calculations to estimate that the historical death rate of children throughout this time. He found that it wasover 50%, and that the deaths of these children were mostly due to diseases (like malaria). Paul thus sees it as aproblem of evil, because this means, throughout human history, over 50 billion people died naturally before theywere old enough to give mature consent. He adds that this could have implications for calculating the population of aheaven (which could include an additional 30 000 billion humans who died naturally but prenatally, theaforementioned 50 billion children, and finally the remaining 50 billion adults – excluding those alive today).[16][17]

A common response to instances of the evidential problem is that there are plausible (and not hidden) justificationsfor God’s permission of evil. These theodicies are discussed below.

Related argumentsDoctrines of hell, particularly those involving eternal suffering, pose a particularly strong form of the problem of evil(see problem of hell). If unbelief, incorrect beliefs, or poor design are considered evils, then the argument fromnonbelief, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from poor design may be seen as particularinstances of the argument from evil.

Answers and theodiciesResponses to the problem of evil have sometimes been classified as defenses or theodicies. However, authorsdisagree on the exact definitions.[1][2][18] Generally, a defense may refer to attempts to defuse the logical problem ofevil by showing that there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the existence of God. Adefense need not argue that this is a probable or plausible explanation, only that the explanation is logically possible,for if on some logically possible explanation God and evil are logically compatible, then whatever the case withrespect to that explanation's being true or not, God and evil are logically compatible.[19]

A theodicy,[20] on the other hand, is more ambitious, since it attempts to provide a plausible justification—a morallysufficient reason—for the existence of evil and thereby rebut the "evidential" argument from evil.[2] RichardSwinburne maintains that it does not make sense to assume there are greater goods that justify the evil's presence inthe world unless we know what they are—without knowledge of what the greater goods could be, one cannot have asuccessful theodicy.[21] Thus, some authors see arguments appealing to demons or the fall of man as indeed logicallypossible, but not very plausible given our knowledge about the world, and so see those arguments as providingdefenses but not good theodicies.[2]

Lacking omnibenevolence, omniscience, or omnipotenceThe problem of evil will not be encountered if God lacks any one of the three qualities.

Lacking omnibenevolence

Dystheism is the belief that God is not wholly good.Since good and evil are merely the perceptions of what is beneficial and harmful to a living creature, the humanconcept of good and evil may not be applicable to God. God may not be bound to human standards of morality, ormay not be wholly good from a human perspective. One argument proposes a Creator who is omnipotent, omniscientand completely just, although is not omnibenevolent. In this argument, since God brings the universe into existence,God can cause both 'good' and 'evil' in the world while remaining completely just.Pantheism and panentheism may or may not have a problem of evil depending on how God is perceived.

Problem of evil 4

Lacking omnipotence

In polytheism the individual deities are usually not omnipotent or omnibenevolent. However, if one of the deities hasthese properties the problem of evil applies. Belief systems where several deities are omnipotent would lead tological contradictions.Ditheistic belief systems (a kind of dualism) explain the problem of evil from the existence of two rival great, but notomnipotent, deities that work in polar opposition to each other. Examples of such belief systems includeZoroastrianism, Manichaeism, and possibly Gnosticism. The Devil in Islam and in Christianity is not seen as equalin power to God who is omnipotent. Thus the Devil could only exist if so allowed by God. The Devil, if so limited inpower, can therefore by himself not explain the problem of evil.Process theology and open theism are other positions that limit God's omnipotence and/or omniscience (as defined intraditional Christian theology).The omnipotence paradoxes have some proposed solutions that place limits on omnipotence such as not doinglogically impossible things. Greater good arguments also make such assumptions since it is argued that God cannotdo logically impossible things and the existence of the greater good, such as free will, without the existence of evil isargued to be logically impossible.[8]

Free willThe free will argument is as follows: God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something oftremendous value. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby eliminating the greater good of havingcreated persons with free will who can make moral choices.[2][8] Freedom (and, often it is said, the lovingrelationships which would not be possible without freedom) here is intended to provide a morally sufficient reasonfor God's allowing evil.[22]

C. S. Lewis writes in his book The Problem of Pain:We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by Hiscreatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and theair refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a worldwould be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would bevoid; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for thecerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them.[23]

"Natural" evils such as earthquakes and many diseases are sometimes seen as problems for free will theodicies sincethey don't seem to be caused by free decisions. Possible reasons for natural evils include that they are caused by thefree choices of supernatural beings such as demons (these beings are not so powerful as to limit God'somnipotence—another possible response, discussed later); that they are caused by original sin which in turn iscaused by free will; that they are caused by natural laws that must operate as they do if intelligent, free agents are toexist; or that through observation and copying they allow humans to perform greater evils, which makes moraldecisions more significant.[24][25]

For many evils such as murder, rape, or theft it appears that the free will and choice of the victim are diminished bythe free will decisions of the offender. In some cases such as murdered very young children, it appears that theynever had any free will choices to make at all. A possible response is that a world with some free will is better than aworld with none at all, however an omnipotent deity should by some definitions be able to circumvent this withoutimpinging on the free will of the offender.Another possible objection is that free will could exist without the degree of evil seen in this world. This could be accomplished by inducing humans to be inclined to always make, or make more, good moral decisions by causing these to feel more pleasurable; or if harmful choices were made, then for some or all of them God would prevent the harmful consequences from actually happening; or if harmful consequences occurred, then God would sometimes or

Problem of evil 5

always immediately punish such acts, which would presumably diminish their frequency; or the worst diseases couldhave been prevented, more resources could have been available for humanity, extremely intense pains either did notarise or could be turned off when they served no purpose. A reply is that such a "toy world" would mean that freewill has less or no real value. A response to this is to argue that then it would be similarly wrong for humans to try toreduce suffering, a position for which few would argue.[1] The debate depends on the definitions of free will anddeterminism, which are deeply disputed concepts themselves, as well as their relation to one another. See alsocompatibilism and incompatibilism and predestination.There is also a debate regarding free will and omniscience. The argument from free will argues that any conceptionof God that incorporates both properties is inherently contradictory.While not affecting the validity of the free will argument itself, this reasoning creates problems for other commonreligious beliefs. It implies that there can be no heaven unless its inhabitants have no free will and thus lose itstremendous value. If a heavenly existence is still more valuable than an earthly existence, then the earthly one seemsunnecessary and filled with meaningless suffering. Another problem is that if free-will requires the ability to chooseevil, then God does not seem to have free-will, since he cannot fail to do what is good[8]. One response to this is toargue that God's omnibenevolence consists in his constantly choosing to do good, however, as this view still allowsthat it would be possible for God to choose evil, it is not consistent with taking omnibenevolence to be an essentialcharacteristic of God. Another response is to assert that God defines goodness, and so, as a matter of necessity,anything he does would be good. For discussion, see the Euthyphro dilemma.

Consequences of sinThus, another possible answer is that the world is corrupted due to the sin of mankind (like the original sin). Someargue that because of sin, the world has fallen from the grace of God, and is not perfect. Therefore, evils andimperfections persist because the world is fallen. An objection is asking why God did not create man in such a waythat he would never sin. A reply is that God wanted man to have free will which makes this another example of thefree will argument.[26] Some have wondered whether free-agency, or the loving relationships to which it is thought tobe necessary, constitutes a good large enough to justify the evil it brings in its wake.There are also beliefs that when people experience evils it is always because of evils they themselves have done (seeKarma and the just-world phenomenon) or their ancestors have done (see again the original sin).

Soul-making or Irenaean TheodicyEvil and suffering may be necessary for spiritual growth. This approach is often combined with the free willargument by arguing that such spiritual growth requires free will decisions. This theodicy was developed by thesecond-century Christian theologian, Irenaeus of Lyons, and its most recent and outspoken advocate has been theinfluential philosopher of religion, John Hick. A perceived inadequacy with the Irenaean theodicy is that manynatural evils do not seem to promote this, such as the suffering of young children. Others enjoy lives of ease andluxury where there is virtually nothing that challenges them to undergo moral growth.[27] Another problem attendsthis kind of theodicy when "spiritual growth" is cashed out in terms of its usefulness in overcoming evil. But ofcourse, if there were no evil that needed overcoming in the first place, such an ability would lose its point. Onewould then need to say something more about the inherent value in spiritual health.

Problem of evil 6

AfterlifeAnother response is the afterlife theodicy. Christian theologian Randy Alcorn argues that the joys of heaven willcompensate for the sufferings on earth. He writes:

Without this eternal perspective, we assume that people who die young, who have handicaps, who suffer poorhealth, who don't get married or have children, or who don't do this or that will miss out on the best life has tooffer. But the theology underlying these assumptions have a fatal flaw. It presumes that our present Earth,bodies, culture, relationships and lives are all there is.[28]

Philosopher Stephen Maitzen has called this the "Heaven Swamps Everything" theodicy, and argues that it is falsebecause it conflates compensation and justification. He comments that this reasoning:

...may stem from imagining an ecstatic or forgiving state of mind on the part of the blissful: in heaven no onebears grudges, even the most horrific earthly suffering is as nothing compared to infinite bliss, all past wrongsare forgiven. But “are forgiven” doesn’t mean “were justified”; the blissful person’s disinclination to dwell onhis or her earthly suffering doesn’t imply that a perfect being was justified in permitting the suffering all along.By the same token, our ordinary moral practice recognizes a legitimate complaint about child abuse even if, asadults, its victims should happen to be on drugs that make them uninterested in complaining. Even if heavenswamps everything, it doesn’t thereby justify everything.[29]

Humanity's limited knowledgeOne response is that, due to humanity's limited knowledge, humans cannot expect to understand God or his ultimateplan. When a parent takes an infant to the doctor for a regular vaccination to prevent childhood disease, it's becausethe parent cares for and loves that child. The infant however will be unable to appreciate this. It is argued that just asan infant cannot possibly understand the motives of its parent due to its cognitive limitations, so too are humansunable to comprehend God's will in their current physical and earthly state.[30] Given this view, the difficulty orimpossibility of finding a plausible explanation for evil in a world created by God is to be expected, and so theargument from evil is assumed to fail unless it can be proven that God's reasons would be comprehensible to us.[31]

A related response is that the concepts of good and evil are beyond human comprehension, given their divine origin.Thus, what appears to be "evil" is only evil from humanity's limited point of view, but is not truly evil. This viewwould supply an agreeable interpretation of the biblical passage: "...Who makes peace and creates evil; I am theLord, Who makes all these.".[32]

A counter-argument is that God could make it absolutely clear to and assure humanity that, even if these cannot beunderstood in detail, good reasons and a plan do exist. Here the problem of evil becomes similar to the argumentfrom nonbelief.[2] The "limited knowledge" defense to the problem of evil has been argued by some to be afallacious appeal to ignorance.

Definition of evil as absence of goodThe fifth century theologian Augustine of Hippo maintained that evil exists only as a privation (lack, absence) in thatwhich is good and thus evil is not created by God. Evil is only privatio boni or an absence of good such as indiscord, injustice, and loss of life or of liberty. Some believe that this doesn't completely solve the problem of evil, asthe question remains why God neglected to create those goods that are found to be lacking in the world.[33]

A common concept takes this one step further, defining Evil as a relative absence of God, Himself. A correlation isusually drawn to heat vs cold or light vs dark. Just as cold and darkness do not truly "exist," except as a comparison(the less heat that is included, the colder something feels) so too does evil not truly exist, except as a comparison (theless God is included, the more evil something is). This comparison does not contradict the omnipresence of God,since energy is present even in cold things.

Problem of evil 7

Concepts such as the Taoist yin and yang suggest that evil and good are complementary opposites within a unitedwhole. If one disappears, the other must disappear as well, leaving emptiness. Compassion, a valuable virtue, canonly exist if there is suffering. Bravery only exists if we sometimes face danger. Self-sacrifice is another great good,but can only exist if there is inter-dependence, if some people find themselves in situations where they need helpfrom others. (Sometimes known as the 'need for contrast' argument in GCSE Religious studies examinations.)

Evil is an illusionOne possible argument is that evils such as suffering and disease are illusions. An argument against is that thesensation of suffering caused by such illusions is evil.[33] Strictly speaking, the claim that evils don't exist representsa dissolution rather than a solution to the problem of evil, which is only generated on the supposition that evil exists.This approach is favored by some Eastern religious philosophies such as Hinduism and Buddhism, and by ChristianScience.This solution has been criticized by arguing that also the illusions of evil are problematic, such as the illusion ofpain, and that it needs to be explained why God allows the illusions of evil to persist.[34]

"Evil" suggests an ethical lawAnother response to this paradox argues that asserting "evil exists" would imply an ethical standard against which todefine good and evil which implies the existence of God. See the argument from morality.C. S. Lewis writes in his book Mere Christianity,

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of justand unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was Icomparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice bysaying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsedtoo—for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen toplease my fancies.[35]

In order to satisfy those who believe the distinction between good and evil is grounded on the existence of a divinelaw, the factual premise "evil exists" can be stated in the conditional form "if there is a perfect being, evil exists".Since arguments from evil attempt to show that existence of evil in the world contradicts (or provides evidenceagainst) the premises of orthodox theism, it suffices for the purpose of such arguments to think of evil as such "stateof affairs that orthodox theists would agree are properly called evil".[36]

No best of all possible worldsAssume that there is no best of all possible worlds. Then for every possible world, however good, there is a betterone. For any world God creates, there is a better. Then it is argued that God cannot be criticized for not havingcreated a better world since this criticism would apply no matter which world God were to create. One can not befaulted for failing to perform some act where there is no logical possibility of performing it.One response is that, even accepting the basic assumption that there is no best of all possible worlds, a value systemwhich sees all worlds except the best possible one as equally valuable is questionable. But the argument onlyassumes that all worlds are equally permissible for God to create, not that they are equally valuable.Another response is to avoid a direct confrontation and argue instead from a deontological approach that certainforms of the problem of evil do not depend on the claim that this world could be improved upon, or upon the claimthat it is not the best of all possible worlds: it is that there are in the actual world evils which it would be morallywrong for God to allow. That there might be better and better worlds without limit is simply irrelevant.[1]

Problem of evil 8

God's nature is freedom and/or agency giving loveThomas Jay Oord argues that the theoretical aspect of the problem of evil is solved if one postulates that God'seternal nature is love. As necessarily loving, God always gives freedom and/or agency to others, and God cannot dootherwise. Oord calls his position, "Essential Kenosis," and he says that God is involuntarily self-limited. God'snature of love means that God cannot fail to offer, withdraw, or override the freedom and/or agency God givescreatures.[37]

Settling the issue of universal sovereigntyJehovah's Witnesses teach that God has tolerated evil since the Garden of Eden in order to establish evidence thatJehovah's "right to rule" is both correct and in the best interests of all intelligent beings, and to give individualhumans the opportunity despite adversity to demonstrate their willingness or lack of willingness to submit to God'srulership (that is, to God's "universal sovereignty"). They contend that God could have justly executed Satan, Adamand Eve, but that would only have demonstrated God's power and would not actually have settled the issue raised:the "issue of universal sovereignty" implied by Satan's claim that "your eyes will be opened" upon disobeyingGod.[38]

God allowed that the issue could be settled by allowing humankind and Satan several millennia to experiment withany form of government and social organization they wished without interference or overt intervention by God, andto solve humankind's problems by their own secular and/or demonic devices. During the intervening period ofalienation from God, free-will individuals (such as Job) could show whether it is possible for humans to remainsubject to God despite whatever evils might occur to them by coincidence or by Satanic purpose. With fewlimitations, demons and humans could tacitly or actively perpetuate evil.[39]

At some future time known to him, God will end this period of evil (during which humankind has been alienatedfrom God) and consider the issue of universal sovereignty to have been settled in God's favor as precedent for alltime. The reconciliation of "faithful" humankind will have been accomplished through Christ, and nonconforminghumans and demons will have been destroyed. Thereafter, evil (any failure to submit to God's rulership) will besummarily executed.[40]

General criticisms of all defenses and theodiciesSteven M. Cahn has argued that there exists a "problem of good" (or "Cacodaemony") which is a mirror image of theproblem of evil. The problem is the same except for that omnibenevolence is replaced by omnimalevolence, greatergood is replaced by greater evil, and so on. Cahn argued that all arguments, defenses, and theodicies regarding theproblem of evil applies similarly to the problem of good. However, critics have noted that the "problems" are aboutwhether such omnipotent beings "could" or are "likely" to exist, not that they "must" exist, so these problems do notlogically contradict one another.[41][42]

An argument that has been raised against theodicies is that, if a theodicy were true, it would completely nullifymorality. If a theodicy were true, then all evil events, including human actions, can be rationalized as permitted oraffected by God, If every conceivable state of affairs is compatible with the "goodness" of God, the concept isrendered meaningless.[43] Volker Dittman writes that,

the crucial point is, that .... there will be no evil, because every suffering could be justified. Worse: It would beimpossible to act evil. I could torture and murder a young child, but this would be justified for a higher good(whatever the perfect solution is, it could be something else than free will). This would be the end of all moral,which clearly is absurd. The theist could not point to the ten commandments and claim that they are necessary,because one goal of morals – to prevent evil – would be granted no matter how I behave...[44]

Problem of evil 9

By religion

Ancient Mesopotamia and EgyptThe problem of evil takes at least four formulations in ancient Mesopotamian religious thought, as in the extantmanuscripts of Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom), Erra and Ishum, The Babylonian Theodicy,and The Dialogue of Pessimism.[45] In this type of polytheistic context, the chaotic nature of the world impliesmultiple gods battling for control.In ancient Egypt, it was thought the problem takes at least two formulations, as in the extant manuscripts of Dialogueof a Man with His Ba and The Eloquent Peasant. Due to the conception of Egyptian gods as being far removed, thesetwo formulations of the problem focus heavily on the relation between evil and people; that is, moral evil.[46]

Judaism

The Hebrew Bible

A verse in the Book of Isaiah is interpreted in the King James Bible as "I form the light, and create darkness: I makepeace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.".[47] The Hebrew word is רע Ra`, which occurs over 600hundred times[48] in the Hebrew Bible. It is a generalized term for something considered bad, not held to meanspecifically wickedness or injustice in this context,[49] but to mean calamity,[50] or bad times,[51] or disaster.[52]

The Book of Job is one of the most widely known formulations in Western thought questioning why suffering exists.Originally written in Hebrew as an epic poem, the story centers on Job, a perfectly just and righteous person. Hemakes no serious errors in life and strives to do nothing wrong; as a result he is very successful. A characterdescribed only as the 'Accuser' challenges God, claiming that Job is only righteous because God has rewarded himwith a good life. The Accuser proposes that if God were to allow everything Job loved to be destroyed, Job wouldthen cease to be righteous. God allows the Accuser to destroy Job's wealth and children, and to strike him withsickness and boils. Job discusses his condition with three friends. His three friends insist that God never allows badthings to happen to good people, and assert that Job must have done something to deserve his punishment. Jobresponds that is not the case and that he would be willing to defend himself to God. A fourth friend, Elihu, arrivesand criticizes all of them. Elihu states that God is perfectly just and good. God then responds to Job in a speechdelivered from "out of a whirlwind", explaining the universe from the scope of God's perspective and demonstratingthat the workings of the world are beyond human understanding. In the end God states that the three friends wereincorrect, and that Job was incorrect for assuming he could question God. God more than restores Job's prior health,wealth, and gives him new children, as though he has been awakened from a nightmare into a new awareness ofspiritual reality. The ultimate purpose of the story is a matter of much debate.Professor of Religious Studies Bart D. Ehrman argues that different parts of the Bible give different answers. Oneexample is evil as punishment for sin or as a consequence of sin. Ehrman writes that this seems to be based on somenotion of free will although this argument is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Another argument is thatsuffering ultimately achieves a greater good, possibly for persons other than the sufferer, that would not have beenpossible otherwise. The Book of Job offers two answers: suffering is a test, and you will be rewarded later forpassing it; another that God is not held accountable to human conceptions of morality. Ecclesiastes sees suffering asbeyond human abilities to comprehend.[53]

Problem of evil 10

Later Jewish interpretations

An oral tradition exists in Judaism that God determined the time of the Messiah's coming by erecting a great set ofscales. On one side, God placed the captive Messiah with the souls of dead laymen. On the other side, God placedsorrow, tears, and the souls of righteous martyrs. God then declared that the Messiah would appear on earth when thescale was balanced. According to this tradition, then, evil is necessary in the bringing of the world's redemption, assufferings reside on the scale.Tzimtzum in Kabbalistic thought holds that God has withdrawn himself so that creation could exist, but that thiswithdrawal means that creation lacks full exposure to God's all-good nature.

Christianity

Apocalyptism

Bart D. Ehrman argues that apocalyptic parts of the Bible, including the New Testament, see suffering as due tocosmic evil forces, that God for mysterious reasons has given power over the world, but which will soon be defeatedand things will be set right.[53]

Gnosticism

Gnosticism refers to several beliefs seeing evil as due to the world being created by an imperfect god, the demiurgeand is contrasted with a superior entity. However, this by itself does not answer the problem of evil if the superiorentity is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Different gnostic beliefs may give varying answers, like Manichaeism,which adopts dualism, in opposition to the doctrine of omnipotence.

Irenaean theodicy

Irenaean theodicy, posited by Irenaeus (2nd century AD – c. 202), has been reformulated by John Hick. It holds thatone cannot achieve moral goodness or love for God if there is no evil and suffering in the world. Evil is soul-makingand leads one to be truly moral and close to God. God created an epistemic distance (such that God is notimmediately knowable) so that we may strive to know him and by doing so become truly good. Evil is a means togood for 3 main reasons:1. Means of knowledge Hunger leads to pain, and causes a desire to feed. Knowledge of pain prompts humans to

seek to help others in pain.2. Character Building Evil offers the opportunity to grow morally. “We would never learn the art of goodness in a

world designed as a hedonistic paradise” (Richard Swinburne)3. Predictable Environment The world runs to a series of natural laws. These are independent of any inhabitants of

the universe. Natural Evil only occurs when these natural laws conflict with our own perceived needs. This is notimmoral in any way

Pelagianism

The consequences of the original sin were debated by Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo. Pelagius argues on behalf oforiginal innocence, while Augustine indicts Eve and Adam for original sin. Pelagianism is the belief that original sindid not taint all of humanity and that mortal free will is capable of choosing good or evil without divine aid.Augustine's position, and subsequently that of much of Christianity, was that Adam and Eve had the power to toppleGod's perfect order, thus changing nature by bringing sin into the world, but that the advent of sin then limitedmankind's power thereafter to evade the consequences without divine aid.[54] Eastern Orthodox theology holds thatone inherits the nature of sinfulness but not Adam and Eve's guilt for their sin which resulted in the fall.[55]

Problem of evil 11

Augustinian Theodicy

St Augustine of Hippo (354 AD – 430) in his Augustinian theodicy focuses on the Genesis story that essentiallydictates that God created the world and that it was good; evil is merely a consequence of the fall of man (The story ofthe Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed God and caused inherent sin for man). Augustine stated thatnatural evil (evil present in the natural world such as natural disasters etc.) is caused by fallen angels, whereas moralevil (evil caused by the will of human beings) is as a result of man having become estranged from God and choosingto deviate from his chosen path. Augustine argued that God could not have created evil in the world, as it wascreated good, and that all notions of evil are simply a deviation or privation of goodness. Evil cannot be a separateand unique substance. For example, Blindness is not a separate entity, but is merely a lack or privation of sight. Thusthe Augustinian theodicist would argue that the problem of evil and suffering is void because God did not create evil;it was man who chose to deviate from the path of perfect goodness.This, however, poses a number of questions involving genetics: if evil is merely a consequence of our choosing todeviate from God's desired goodness, then genetic disposition of 'evil' (currently fictitious) must surely be in God'splan and desire and thus cannot be blamed on Man.

St. Thomas Aquinas

Saint Thomas systematized the Augustinian conception of evil, supplementing it with his own musings. Evil,according to St. Thomas, is a privation, or the absence of some good which belongs properly to the nature of thecreature.[56] There is therefore no positive source of evil, corresponding to the greater good, which is God;[57] evilbeing not real but rational—i.e. it exists not as an objective fact, but as a subjective conception; things are evil not inthemselves, but by reason of their relation to other things or persons. All realities are in themselves good; theyproduce bad results only incidentally; and consequently the ultimate cause of evil is fundamentally good, as well asthe objects in which evil is found.[58]

Evil is threefold, viz., metaphysical evil, moral, and physical, the retributive consequence of moral guilt.Its existence subserves the perfection of the whole; the universe would be less perfect if it contained noevil. Thus fire could not exist without the corruption of what it consumes; the lion must slay the ass inorder to live, and if there were no wrong doing, there would be no sphere for patience and justice. God issaid (as in Isaiah 45) to be the author of evil in the sense that the corruption of material objects in natureis ordained by Him, as a means for carrying out the design of the universe; and on the other hand, theevil which exists as a consequence of the breach of Divine laws is in the same sense due to Divineappointment; the universe would be less perfect if its laws could be broken with impunity. Thus evil, inone aspect, i.e. as counter-balancing the deordination of sin, has the nature of good. But the evil of sin,though permitted by God, is in no sense due to him; its cause is the abuse of free will by angels andmen. It should be observed that the universal perfection to which evil in some form is necessary, is theperfection of this universe, not of any universe: metaphysical evil, that is to say, and indirectly, moralevil as well, is included in the design of the universe which is partially known to us; but we cannot saywithout denying the Divine omnipotence, that another equally perfect universe could not be created inwhich evil would have no place.[59]

Problem of evil 12

Luther and Calvin

Both Luther and Calvin explained evil as a consequence of the fall of man and the original sin. However, due to thebelief in predestination and omnipotence, the fall is part of God's plan. Ultimately humans may not be able tounderstand and explain this plan.[60]

Lucifer becomes Satan

A more meta-perspective view than of Luther or Calvin is that an angel originally created flawless and namedLucifer convinced itself that it was God then set about deposing the necessary, original God, so becoming Satan theadversary and the King of Rebellion. Since God is omiscient, this would have been foreseen along with theinevitable outcome (since Satan is not actually God, those ambitions will inevitably fail), so God chose (with certainlimitations) to let things work themselves out, proving to the satisfaction of every intelligent being that things willonly work in God's way. The consequence of this is that God is then able to legitimately destroy Satan and thoseallied with them, then no being would ever be tempted to repeat those mistakes. Since never is an indefinitely longtime, the goodness done (no matter how long it takes) in an evil-free universe will inevitably far outweigh any evilgenerated before that penultimate destruction.

Thomas Robert Malthus

The population and economic theorist Thomas Malthus argued that evil exists to spur human creativity andproduction. Without evil or the necessity of strife mankind would have remained in a savage state since all amenitieswould be provided for.[61]

Christian Science

Christian Science views evil as having no reality and as due to false beliefs. Evils such as illness and death may bebanished by correct understanding. This view has been questioned, aside from the general criticisms of the conceptof evil as an illusion discussed earlier, since the presumably correct understanding by Christian Science members,including the founder, has not prevented illness and death.[34]

Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses consider "the problem of evil" concept itself to result from Satan.[62] They believe that evil didnot exist until Satan in the Garden of Eden challenged God's right to rule, that God intends to eventually reverse allevil's effects, and that subsequently evil will never again be tolerated (that is, after Armageddon and Christ'sMillennium Reign). Jehovah's Witnesses publications discuss the entire matter as "settling the issue of universalsovereignty" (see section above).

IslamIslamic scholar Sherman Jackson states that the Mu'tazila school emphasized God's omnibenevolence. Evil arises notfrom God but from the actions of His creations who create their own actions independent of God. The Ash'ari schoolinstead emphasized God's omnipotence. God is not restricted to follow some objective moral system centered onhumans but has the power do whatever He wants with his world. The Maturidi school argued that evil arises fromGod but that evil in the end has a wiser purpose as a whole and for the future. Some theologians have viewed God asall-powerful and human life as being between the hope that God will be merciful and the fear that he will not.[63]

Problem of evil 13

HinduismHinduism is a complex religion with many different currents or schools. As such the problem of evil in Hinduism isanswered in several different ways such as by the concept of karma.

BuddhismIn Buddhism, the problem of evil, or the related problem of dukkha, is one argument against a benevolent,omnipotent creator god, identifying such a notion as attachment to a false concept.[64]

By philosophers

Epicurus

Epicurus

Epicurus is generally credited with first expounding the problem ofevil, and it is sometimes called "the Epicurean paradox" or "the riddleof Epicurus":

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can,but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he isimpotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. IfGod can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why isthere evil in the world? – Epicurus, as quoted in 2000Years of Disbelief

Epicurus himself did not leave any written form of this argument. Itcan be found in Christian theologian Lactantius's Treatise on the Angerof God where Lactantius critiques the argument. Epicurus's argumentas presented by Lactantius actually argues that a god that isall-powerful and all-good does not exist and that the gods are distantand uninvolved with man's concerns. The gods are neither our friendsnor enemies.

David Hume

David Hume's formulation of the problem of evil in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:"Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is hemalevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"[65]

"[God's] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any otheranimal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is nevermistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animalfelicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of humanknowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do hisbenevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?"

Problem of evil 14

Gottfried Leibniz

Gottfried Leibniz

In his Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, the sceptic Pierre Bayledenied the goodness and omnipotence of God on account of thesufferings experienced in this earthly life. Gottfried Leibnizintroduced the term theodicy in his 1710 work Essais deThéodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'originedu mal ("Theodicic Essays on the Benevolence of God, the Freewill of man, and the Origin of Evil") which was directed mainlyagainst Bayle. He argued that this is the best of all possible worldsthat God could have created.

Imitating the example of Leibniz, other philosophers also calledtheir treatises on the problem of evil theodicies. Voltaire's popularnovel Candide mocked Leibnizian optimism through the fictionaltale of a naive youth.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant argued for sceptical theism. He claimed there is areason all possible theodicies must fail: evil is a personal challengeto every human being and can be overcome only by faith.[66] He wrote:[67]

We can understand the necessary limits of our reflections on the subjects which are beyond our reach.This can easily be demonstrated and will put an end once and for all to the trial.

Victor CousinVictor Cousin argued for a form of eclecticism to organize and develop philosophical thought. He believed that theChristian idea of God was very similar to the Platonic concept of "the Good," in that God represented the principlebehind all other principles. Like the ideal of Good, Cousin also believed the ideal of Truth and of Beauty wereanalogous to the position of God, in that they were principles of principles. Using this way of framing the issue,Cousin stridently argued that different competing philosophical ideologies all had some claim on truth, as they allhad arisen in defense of some truth. He however argued that there was a theodicy which united them, and that oneshould be free in quoting competing and sometimes contradictory ideologies in order to gain a greater understandingof truth through their reconciliation.[68]

Peter KreeftChristian philosopher Peter Kreeft provides several answers to the problem of evil and suffering, including that a)God may use short-term evils for long-range goods, b) God created the possibility of evil, but not the evil itself, andthat free will was necessary for the highest good of real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn't mean beingable to do what is logically contradictory, e.g., giving freedom with no potentiality for sin, c) God's own sufferingand death on the cross brought about his supreme triumph over the devil, d) God uses suffering to bring about moralcharacter, quoting apostle Paul in Romans 5, e) Suffering can bring people closer to God, and f) The ultimate"answer" to suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need.[69]

Problem of evil 15

William HatcherMathematical logician William Hatcher (a member of the Baha'i Faith) made use of relational logic to claim thatvery simple models of moral value cannot be consistent with the premise of evil as an absolute, whereas goodness asan absolute is entirely consistent with the other postulates concerning moral value.[70] In Hatcher's view, one canonly validly say that if an act A is "less good" than an act B, one cannot logically commit to saying that A isabsolutely evil, unless one is prepared to abandon other more reasonable principles.

Notes[1] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, " The Problem of Evil (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ evil)", Michael Tooley[2] The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, " The Evidential Problem of Evil (http:/ / www. iep. utm. edu/ e/ evil-evi. htm)", Nick Trakakis[3] Nicholas J. Rengger, Moral Evil and International Relations, in SAIS Review 25:1, Winter/Spring 2005, pp. 3–16[4] Peter Kivy, Melville's Billy and the Secular Problem of Evil: the Worm in the Bud, in The Monist (1980), 63[5] Kekes, John (1990). Facing Evil. Princeton: Princeton UP. ISBN 0-691-07370-8.[6] Timothy Anders, The Evolution of Evil (2000)[7] J.D. Duntley and David Buss, "The Evolution of Evil," in Miller, Arthur (2004). The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (http:/ / homepage.

psy. utexas. edu/ homepage/ Group/ BussLAB/ pdffiles/ The evolution of evil. pdf). New York: Guilford. pp. 102–133. ISBN 1-57230-989-X..

[8] The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, " The Logical Problem of Evil (http:/ / www. iep. utm. edu/ e/ evil-log. htm)", James R. Beebe[9] The formulation may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an

atheist. According to Mark Joseph Larrimore, (2001), The Problem of Evil, pp. xix–xxi. Wiley-Blackwell. According to Reinhold F. Glei, it issettled that the argument of theodicy is from an academical source which is not only not epicurean, but even anti-epicurean. Reinhold F. Glei,Et invidus et inbecillus. Das angebliche Epikurfragment bei Laktanz, De ira dei 13,20–21, in: Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), p. 47–58

[10] Plantinga, Alvin (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil. Harper & Row. p. 58. ISBN 0-8028-1731-9.[11] Meister, Chad (2009). Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Routledge. p. 134. ISBN 0-415-40327-8.[12] For example, the compatibility of God's omniscience and free will has been questioned (see the Argument from free will).[13] Rowe, William L. (1979). "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism". American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 337.[14] Draper, Paul (1989). "Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists". Noûs (Noûs, Vol. 23, No. 3) 23 (3): 331–350.

doi:10.2307/2215486. JSTOR 2215486.[15] Haub, C. 1995/2004. “How Many People Have Ever Lived On Earth?” Population Today, http:/ / www. prb. org/ Articles/ 2002/

HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth. aspx[16] Paul, G.S. (2009) "Theodicy’s Problem: A Statistical Look at the Holocaust of the Children and the Implications of Natural Evil For the Free

Will and Best of All Possible Worlds Hypotheses" Philosophy & Theology 19:125–149[17] Greg Paul and the Problem of Evil, on the podcast and TV show "The Atheist Experience", http:/ / www. atheist-experience. com/[18] Honderich, Ted (2005). "theodicy". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. ISBN 0-19-926479-1. "John Hick, for example, proposes a

theodicy, while Alvin Plantinga formulates a defense. The idea of human free will often appears in a both of these strategies, but in differentways."

[19] For more explanation regarding contradictory propositions and possible worlds, see Plantinga's "God, Freedom and Evil" (Grand Rapids,MI: Eerdmans 1974), 24–29.

[20] Coined by Leibniz from Greek θεός (theós), "god" and δίκη (díkē), "justice", may refer to the project of "justifying God" – showing thatGod's existence is compatible with the existence of evil.

[21] Swinburne, Richard (2005). "evil, the problem of". In Ted Honderich. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. ISBN 0-19-926479-1.[22] Christian pastor and theologian, Gregory A. Boyd claims that God's all-powerful nature does not mean that God exercises all power, and

instead allows free agents to act against his own wishes. He argues that since love must be chosen, love cannot exist without true free will. Healso maintains that God does not plan or will evil in people's lives, but that evil is a result of a combination of free choices and theinterconnectedness and complexity of life in a sinful and fallen world.Boyd & 2003 57–58; 76; 96

[23] C. S. Lewis The Problem of Pain HarperCollins:New York, 1996 pp. 24–25[24] Richard Swinburne in "Is There a God?" writes that "the operation of natural laws producing evils gives humans knowledge (if they choose

to seek it) of how to bring about such evils themselves. Observing you can catch some disease by the operation of natural processes gives methe power either to use those processes to give that disease to other people, or through negligence to allow others to catch it, or to takemeasures to prevent others from catching the disease." In this way, "it increases the range of significant choice....The actions which naturalevil makes possible are ones which allow us to perform at our best and interact with our fellows at the deepest level" (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1996) 108–109.

[25] John Polkinghorne is one advocate of the view that the current natural laws are necessary for free will Polkinghorne, John (2003). Belief inGod in an Age of Science. New Haven, CT: Yale Nota Bene. pp. 14. ISBN 978-0-300-09949-2. and also See esp. ch. 5 of his Science andProvidence. ISBN 978-0-87773-490-1

[26] http:/ / ldolphin. org/ evil. html

Problem of evil 16

[27][27] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Problem of Evil", James R. Beebe[28][28] If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil, published by Random House of Canada, 2009, page 294[29] "Ordinary Morality Implies Atheism" (http:/ / philosophy. acadiau. ca/ tl_files/ sites/ philosophy/ resources/ documents/ Maitzen_OMIA.

pdf), European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 1:2 (2009), 107-126[30] http:/ / www. keyway. ca/ htm2002/ whysufer. htm[31] The Supposed Problem of Evil, biblicalstudies.org/journal/v006n01.html (http:/ / biblicalstudies. org/ journal/ v006n01. html)[32] http:/ / www. chabad. org/ library/ bible_cdo/ aid/ 15976[33] "Does Evil Exist?" (http:/ / www. philosophyofreligion. info/ ?page_id=62). philosophyofreligion.info. 2008. . Retrieved 22 May 2010.[34][34] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition, Baker Academic, 2007, page 445-446[35] C. S. Lewis Mere Christianity Touchstone:New York, 1980 p. 45–46[36] Oppy, Graham. Arguing about Gods, page 261. Cambridge University Press, 2006[37] Oord, Thomas Jay. The Nature of Love: A Theology (2010) ISBN 978-0-8272-0828-5[38] "Part 6: Why God Has Permitted Suffering", Does God Really Care About Us?, ©2001 Watch Tower, page 13, Online (http:/ / www.

watchtower. org/ e/ dg/ ), Retrieved 2012-03-23[39] "Chapter 11: Why Does God Allow Suffering?", What Does the Bible Really Teach?, ©2005 Watch Tower, page 106-114, Online (http:/ /

www. watchtower. org/ e/ bh/ article_11. htm), Retrieved 2012-03-23[40] "Why Does God Allow Evil and Suffering?", The Watchtower, May 1, 2011, page 16[41] "Cacodaemony" (http:/ / links. jstor. org/ sici?sici=0003-2638(197701)37:2<69:C>2. 0. CO;2-S)[42] Cacodaemony and Devilish Isomorphism (http:/ / links. jstor. org/ sici?sici=0003-2638(197801)38:1<59:CADI>2. 0. CO;2-V),

King-Farlow, J. (1978), Cacodaemony and Devilish Isomorphism, Analysis, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Jan., 1978), pp. 59–61[43] The Moral Argument from Evil (http:/ / www. infidels. org/ library/ modern/ dean_stretton/ mae. html), Dean Stretton[44] Dittman, Volker and Tremblay, François The Immorality of Theodicies (http:/ / www. strongatheism. net/ library/ atheology/

immorality_of_theodicies/ )[45] "Ancient Babylonia—Wisdom Literature" (http:/ / www. bible-history. com/ babylonia/ BabyloniaWisdom_Literature. htm). Bible History

Online. . Retrieved 19 April 2007.[46] UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology: Theodicy (http:/ / repositories. cdlib. org/ nelc/ uee/ 1007/ )[47][47] Isaiah  45.7[48][48] Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon; this is keyed to the "Theological Word Book of the Old Testament."[49][49] Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity

Press.[50][50] THE HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984[51][51] Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright 1996.[52][52] Holman Christian Standard Bible ® Copyright 2003, 2002, 2000, 1999[53][53] Bart D. Ehrman. God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. HarperOne. 2008.[54] Catholic Encyclopedia:Pelagius and Pelagianism (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ cathen/ 11604a. htm)[55] Orthodox Theology, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Part II "God Manifest in the World" (http:/ / www. intratext. com/ IXT/

ENG0824/ _P1J. HTM)[56] Summa Contra Gentiles III c. 7 (http:/ / josephkenny. joyeurs. com/ CDtexts/ ContraGentiles3a. htm#7)[57] Summa Theologica Ia q. 49 a. 3 (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ summa/ 1049. htm#article3)[58] Summa Theologica Ia q. 49 a. 1 (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ summa/ 1049. htm#article1) and Summa Contra Gentiles III c. 10 (http:/ /

josephkenny. joyeurs. com/ CDtexts/ ContraGentiles3a. htm#10)[59] Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on evil (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ cathen/ 05649a. htm)[60] The Problem of Evil in the Western Tradition: From the Book of Job to Modern Genetics, Joseph F. Kelly, p. 94–96[61][61] Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. Oxford World's Classics reprint. p158[62] "Why All Suffering Is Soon to End", The Watchtower, May 15, 2007, page 21, "For some, the obstacle [to believing in God] involves what

is often called the problem of evil. They feel that if God exists and is almighty and loving, the evil and suffering in the world cannot beexplained. No God who tolerates evil could exist, they reason... Satan has surely proved adept at blinding human minds. ...God is notresponsible for the wickedness so prevalent in the world. [emphasis added]

[63] Sherman Jackson, The Problem of Suffering: Muslim Theological Reflections, 09/18/10, The Huffington Post, http:/ / www. huffingtonpost.com/ sherman-a-jackson/ on-god-and-suffering-musl_b_713994. html

[64] Ja, Book XXII, No. 543, vv. 208–209, trans. Gunasekara, V. A. (1993; 2nd ed. 1997). The Buddhist Attitude to God. Retrieved 22 Dec 2008from "BuddhaNet" at http:/ / www. buddhanet. net/ budsas/ ebud/ ebdha068. htm. For an alternate translation, see E. B. Cowell (ed.) (1895,2000), The Jataka or Stories of the Buddha's Former Births (6 vols.), p. 110, retrieved 22 Dec 2008 from "Google Books" at http:/ / books.google. com/ books?id=BADEnh5f4jkC& pg=PA80& lpg=PA80& dq=%22Bh%C5%ABridatta+ Jataka%22& source=web&ots=-0KMXfCd6o& sig=JY5_oGXrabzqmuvXwW0VKpvRlvs& hl=en& sa=X& oi=book_result& resnum=1& ct=result#PPA110,M1. In thisJataka tale, as in much of Buddhist literature, "God" refers to the Vedic/Hindu Brahma.

[65] Hume, David. "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" (http:/ / www. gutenberg. org/ etext/ 4583). Project Gutenberg. . Retrieved 15August 2008.

Problem of evil 17

[66] See Kant's essay, "Concerning the Possibility of a Theodicy and the Failure of All Previous Philosophical Attempts in the Field" (1791).Stephen Palmquist explains why Kant refuses to solve the problem of evil in "Faith in the Face of Evil", Appendix VI of Kant's CriticalReligion (http:/ / www. hkbu. edu. hk/ ~ppp/ ksp2) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000).

[67] As quoted in Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible? (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2003. 04. CTNS_theodicy. pdf)[68] Cousin, Victor (1856). The True, the Beautiful, and the Good. D, Appleton & Co.. pp. 75–101. ISBN 978-1-4255-4330-3.[69] Strobel, Lee (2000). The Case for Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. pp. 25–56.[70] Hatcher, William, Computers, Logic and a Middle Way (http:/ / www. onecountry. org/ e144/ e14416as_Minimalism_Review. htm)

Further reading•• Adams, Marilyn McCord. "Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God." Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,

1999.• Adams, Marilyn McCord and Robert M. Adams, eds. "The Problem of Evil". Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1990. The standard anthology in English. Contains classic papers by recent philosophers of religion in the analytictradition. Deals with both the logical problem and the evidential problem.

•• Adams, Robert M. "Must God Create the Best?" in "The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in PhilosophicalTheology". New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

•• Adams, Robert M. "Existence, Self-Interest and the Problem of Evil" in "The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays inPhilosophical Theology". New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

• Aquinas, Thomas. On Evil (De Malo), trans. Regan; ed. Brian Davies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003.• Beebe, James R. (2006). "The Logical Problem of Evil" (http:/ / www. iep. utm. edu/ e/ evil-log. htm). In Fieser,

James; Bradley, Dowden. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.• Boyd, Gregory A. (2003). Is God to Blame?. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-2394-8.• Brown, Paterson. "Religious Morality" (http:/ / www. metalog. org/ files/ tpb/ rel. m. html), Mind, 1963.• Brown, Paterson. "Religious Morality: a Reply to Flew and Campbell" (http:/ / www. metalog. org/ files/ tpb/

reply. html), Mind, 1964.• Brown, Paterson. "God and the Good" (http:/ / www. metalog. org/ files/ tpb/ god. g. html), Religious Studies,

1967.• Carver Thomas N. 1908. "The Economic Basis of the Problem of Evil," Harvard Theological Review, 1(1), pp. 97

(http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=lP0LAAAAIAAJ& pg=PA97& lpg=PA97& dq=bl& ots=d_S53v307b&sig=SdakU_iXyhn7XT-d-zbNYFUSB_Y& hl=en& ei=TGu6ScDVCuH8tgfa7eTiDw& sa=X& oi=book_result&resnum=2& ct=result)- 111. (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=lP0LAAAAIAAJ& pg=PA111&lpg=PA111& dq=bl& ots=d_S53v307b& sig=SdakU_iXyhn7XT-d-zbNYFUSB_Y& hl=en&ei=TGu6ScDVCuH8tgfa7eTiDw& sa=X& oi=book_result& resnum=2& ct=result)

• Farrer, Austin (1961). Love Almighty and Ills Unlimited. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.• Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov, 1881. Chapters "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor"• Haught, James A. (1996). 2,000 Years of Disbelief: Famous People with the Courage to Doubt. Amherst, N.Y.:

Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-067-3.• Hick, John (1966). Evil and the God of Love. London: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-06-063902-0.• Howard-Snyder, Daniel, ed. The Evidential Problem of Evil. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indian University

Press, 1996. Probably the best collection of essays in English on the evidential argument from evil. Includes mostof the major players on the topic.

• Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-06-063902-0.• Hume, David. Dialogues on Natural Religion (Parts X and XI), ed. Richard Pokin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett,

1980.• Leibniz, G. W. von. Theodicy.•• Leibniz, G. W. von. "A Vindication of God's Justice...", ("Causa Dei") trans. Paul Schrecker and Anne Martin

Schrecker. New York: MacMillan, 1965.

Problem of evil 18

• Murray, Michael (1998). "Leibniz on the Problem of Evil" (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ leibniz-evil/ ). InZalta, Edward N.. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

• Ormsby, Eric. Theodicy in Islamic Thought (Princeton University Press, 1984)• Palmquist, Stephen (2000). "Faith in the Face of Evil (Appendix VI)". Kant's Critical Religion. Aldershot,

England: Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-1333-X.• Plantinga, Alvin (1977). God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-1731-0.• Plantinga, Alvin (1974). The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-824414-1.• Rowe, William. "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism" in The Problem of Evil, ed. Marilyn

McCord Adams and Robert M. Adams. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.• Stewart, Matthew. The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza and the Fate of God in the Modern World.

W.W. Norton, 2005.• Swinburne, Richard (1997). The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-824070-9.• Swinburne, Richard. Providence and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.• Tooley, Michael (2002). "The Problem of Evil" (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ evil/ ). In Zalta, Edward N..

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.• Trakakis, Nick (2006). "Evidential Problem of Evil" (http:/ / www. iep. utm. edu/ e/ evil-evi. htm). In Fieser,

James; Bradley, Dowden. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.• Van Inwagen, Peter. The Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.• Wilson, William McF.; Hartt, Julian N. (2004). "Farrer's Theodicy". In Hein, David; Henderson, Edward.

Captured by the Crucified: The Practical Theology of Austin Farrer. New York: T & T Clark International.pp. 100–118. ISBN 0-567-02510-1.

• Voltaire. Candide. Many editions. Voltaire's caustic response to Leibniz' doctrine that this is the best possibleworld.

External links• Tattersall, Nicholas (1998). "The Evidential Argument from Evil" (http:/ / www. infidels. org/ library/ modern/

nicholas_tattersall/ evil. html). Secular Web Library. Internet Infidels. Retrieved 12 April 2007.• Project Gutenburg: Leibniz, Theodicy (English translation) (http:/ / www. gutenberg. org/ etext/ 17147)• Faith in the Face of Evil (http:/ / www. hkbu. edu. hk/ ~ppp/ ksp2/ KCRap6. htm), Appendix VI of Kant's Critical

Religion (http:/ / www. hkbu. edu. hk/ ~ppp/ ksp2), by Stephen Palmquist.• "Belief in God linked to suffering" (http:/ / ibcsr. org/ index. php?option=com_content& view=article&

id=148:belief-in-god-linked-to-suffering& catid=25:research-news& Itemid=59) Article from the Institute for theBiocultural Study of Religion (http:/ / ibcsr. org/ )

• "On Possible Ethical Problems of Evil within Evolutionary Theory" (http:/ / whatisevilwhoisgood. wordpress.com/ )

Encyclopedias• The Logical Problem of Evil (http:/ / www. iep. utm. edu/ e/ evil-log. htm) entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy• The Evidential Problem of Evil (http:/ / www. iep. utm. edu/ e/ evil-evi. htm) entry in the Internet Encyclopedia

of Philosophy• The Problem of Evil (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ evil) entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy• Leibniz on the Problem of Evil (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ leibniz-evil/ ) entry in the Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy• Evil – The Catholic Encyclopedia (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ cathen/ 05649a. htm)

Article Sources and Contributors 19

Article Sources and ContributorsProblem of evil  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=501569748  Contributors: 09cfmajew, 128.32.172.xxx, 271828182, 2ct7, 42elliott, 64.105.112.xxx, Acadēmica Orientālis,AdamWill, Addshore, Adx123, Aelwryn, Aetheling, Agondie, AiliyaA, Al-Zaidi, Alan Liefting, Alansohn, Alex Peppe, Alexjohnc3, Andres, AndrewBuck, Andycjp, Angus Lepper,Anomalocaris, Anthony on Stilts, Ap, Arb, ArcticFrog, Ariel., Arthur3030, AuthorityTam, Avb, AxelBoldt, AxiomOfFaith, B4hand, BD2412, BM, Back2back2back, Baculus, Barbara Shack,Bdesham, Bdw5000, Beland, Belovedfreak, BenBaker, Bertrc, Bikeable, Bilby, BishopOcelot, BlueZenith, Bobrayner, Branfish, Brian0918, Brookwarner, Bryan Derksen, Buddhipriya,Buddy23Lee, Bwildasi, Caged Faraday, Camembert, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Carl.bunderson, Cassowary, Causa sui, Caval valor, CecilWard, Charles Matthews, CharlesMartel, Chinju,Chris Q, ChrisRay6000, Chrisk7, Chrisminter, Ciabrycon, Circeus, ClamDip, Cleanclothes26, CliffC, CommonsDelinker, Constanz, Conversion script, CorrectKnowledge, Courcelles, Cpoteet,Crystalcorp, Ctmt, Cybercobra, Cyrius, DBaba, Damian Yerrick, Dandv, Danger, DanielCD, DanielM4, DannyMuse, Darist, David-Sarah Hopwood, DavidDurieux, Davidhein, Davidstrauss,Davrids, Dbachmann, Dc lereverend, Dcljr, Dcoetzee, Decemberette, Dedgeord, Deformedhairroots, Deleet, Delldot, Deltabeignet, Dev920, Dictonar345, Dionysiaca, Djayjp, Doc Tropics,Dolefuldove, Don4of4, DonQuixote, Dougweller, DrRetard, DrStrangepork, Dreadstar, Dream of Nyx, Drf5n, Drmies, Dycedarg, Eastlaw, Ed Poor, Editor2020, Edward Z. Yang, Edwardamo, ElC, Elizabeyth, Elonka, Emurphy42, EoGuy, Erzengel, Esteban.barahona, Evercat, Everything Inane, Excirial, Exerda, Expertoneverything, Fabullus, Fairandbalanced, Favonian, Fig wright, FinnBjørklid, FisherQueen, Flex, Franc28, Fratley, Freechild, GRuban, Gabbe, Gabrielthursday, Gail, Gary D, George100, Geremia, Gijs.deRue, Gioto, Gm4444, Goethean, Gogo Dodo, GoingBatty,GoldenMeadows, Gosgood, Grafen, Graham87, Gregbard, Grog42, Guillaume0320, Hajenso, Haukurth, Headlikeawhole, Healeym, Henri Bergson, Herostratus, History2007, Honeydew,Ht686rg90, Huon, IGlowInTheDark, IPSOS, IZAK, Ian Maxwell, Ig0774, Igodard, Ikant, Ilkali, Infinity0, InverseHypercube, Invmog, Irene1949, Iridescent, Ishmaelblues, Island Monkey,ItsZippy, Itsmine, Jagged 85, Jamyskis, Jaybird88, Jaymay, Jclemens, Jennavecia, Jerryb1961, Jfranklin2005, Jhchristensen, Jim1138, Jiohdi, Jnothman, John9988, Jonkerz, Jouvenel,Judgesurreal777, Jumbolino, Jusdafax, JusticMohamad, JzG, K, Kabobolator, Karada, Karisade, Kartik J, Kdbuffalo, Kenyon, Khazar, Knobbly, Koavf, Koyaanis Qatsi, Kronocide, KrytenKoro,Kwamikagami, LITTLEDUDES, Larry Rosenfeld, Larry_Sanger, Laurentseries, Le Anh-Huy, Leithp, Leonachar, Lesonyrra, LexCorp, Liam Skoda, Liberal Classic, Liempt, LilHelpa, Logios,LotusElite, LoveMonkey, Luckyhalo, LukeH, Lumos3, MStewart, Mac Dreamstate, Macedonian, Manasgarg, Manika, Mann jess, Manwiththemasterplan, Martmor330, Mathmo, Mathsci,Matnkat, Mav, Mboverload, Meersan, Mel Etitis, Merzul, Metamagician3000, Metron4, MiNombreDeGuerra, Michaelpremsrirat, Microchip8, Mike1024, Mild Bill Hiccup, Millancad,Mimihitam, Misanthropic2591, Misfit, Mjangle, Mladifilozof, Mmortal03, Modemac, Momergil, Monozigote, Moshems, Mpatrick.tx, Mr. Wheely Guy, MrSmartathlete, Mudd1, Mx3,Nathanielfirst, NawlinWiki, Neodop, Neural, Neutrality, Neutron Jack, NewEnglandYankee, Nickersonl, Nicolexa13, Njugunocious, Northfox, Notcodyshafer, Nowa, NrDg, Nujman, Odd nature,Ohconfucius, Ojcb2, OlEnglish, Opus33, Otashiro, Paine Ellsworth, PandaDB, ParaRaride, Paradoctor, PassionoftheDamon, Paterson Brown, PatternOfPersona, Paul Murray, Penelopeia,Penguinwithin, Pensees, Pereant antiburchius, Peter M Gerdes, Peter Winnberg, Phronesis8, Pichote, Picklegnome, Pigman, PinchasC, Pip25, Planetary Chaos, Pollinator, Portillo, Q Chris,Qwyrxian, RHaworth, RK, Raj2004, Ramin Mathias, Ramurf, Rbreen, ReaverFlash, Redheylin, ReyBrujo, Rfl, Rhobite, Rholton, Richard001, Ricki0410, Rjwilmsi, Robert Daoust, RobinLionheart, Ross Fraser, Roxy34, Rursus, SJP, SPACKlick, Sabbut, Saluton, Sam Hocevar, Sam Spade, Sarregouset, Sceptre, Sdedeo, Seaphoto, Sethie, Shadow Android, Shadowmask,Shafiq.irfan, Shoaler, Sietse Snel, SimonATL, SimonBillenness, SimonP, Singinglemon, Skomorokh, Skywalker, Slightsmile, Sluzzelin, Smile a While, SoCalSuperEagle, Some jerk on theInternet, Somerset219, Sophus Bie, SouthernNights, Special Creature, Spiff, Spiralfrog, Spiritllama, SquirleyWurley, Srothen84, StAnselm, Steven Walling, Stevertigo, Still, Str1977, Studip101,Sunil vasisht, Supertheman, Suriel1981, Sxoa, TRBP, Tabletop, Tail, Tatarize, Tayste, Tearlach, Terraflorin, Terriblyinept, Tesseract2, Tetracube, Tevildo, Texture, ThanosMadTitan23, ThatGuy, From That Show!, The Anome, The Duke of Waltham, The Famous Movie Director, The Fwanksta, The Lizard Wizard, The Vigilante Editor, TheCJ, TheMadBaron, TheRemnant,TheStarman, Thehebrew, Theismcontrib, Thekingpin68, Theodolite, Thialfi, Thingg, Thivierr, Thomas Gilling, Thomasmeeks, Tide rolls, Tim PF, TimBovee, Timo Honkasalo, Timwi, Tkandell,Tlayell, Tlroche, Todeswalzer, TonyClarke, Trainspotter, Trenex, Trevor MacInnis, Trigaranus, Tucu, Tyciol, Undegaussable, Usedbook, Vaniac, Veinor, Vesal, Vistafreak, WeniWidiWiki,Wesley, Whitepa, Whoistheroach, Why Not A Duck, Wiendietry, Wik, WikiSlasher, Wikignome0530, Wikinterpreter, Will Beback Auto, Wiploc, Wkerney, Woohookitty, Xibur, Yahel Guhan,Yworo, ZackMartin, Zafiroblue05, Zain, Zero or die77, Zozza, 825 ,زرشک ,ایرانی anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and ContributorsImage:Kid-jbk.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kid-jbk.jpg  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: Original uploader was Durazell aten.wikipediaImage:Epikouros BM 1843.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Epikouros_BM_1843.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:JastrowImage:Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gottfried_Wilhelm_von_Leibniz.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors:AndreasPraefcke, Auntof6, Beria, Beyond My Ken, Cirt, Davidlud, Ecummenic, Eusebius, Factumquintus, FalconL, Gabor, Luestling, Mattes, Schaengel89, Shakko, Svencb, Tomisti, 5anonymous edits

LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/