The earliest statement of the problem of evil predates Christianity by about 350 years. The philosopher Epicurus stated what scholars refer to as the Epicurean paradox:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
A theodicy is an attempt to vindicate the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God in the light of the existence of evil.
The Problem of Evil
The logical problem of evil in modern form comes from Australian philosopher J.L. Mackie, who reworked the Epicurean paradox into, what he called, the Inconsistent Triad. Mackie claims that the following three statements cannot logically all be true at the same time without causing a contradiction:
1. God is all-benevolent (all-good)
2. God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
3. Evil exists
His argument goes like this: If God is omnibenevolent, he would be willing to remove all evil. If God is omnipotent, he would be able to remove evil. Since evil exists, that means God does not exist. By using deductive reasoning, Epicurus’s and Mackie’s line of reasoning concludes that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of God.
The evidential problem of evil, unlike the logical problem of evil, argues that the existence of evil makes the existence of God unlikely or improbable. This approach uses inductive reasoning and one of its main proponents is William Rowe. It tends to receive less attention than the logical version, and this article remains true to that tradition.
The evidential problem of evil deals with the amount of evil in the world. If evil had any ability to serve as a tool to learn from, why is evil so prevalent and seemingly excessive? Why would God not teach the lessons with less or less severe evil?
Irenaean Theodicy (or Soul-Making)
Irenaeus was a 2nd-century Church Father. He relied on Genesis for his theodicy, particularly in chapter 1:26 where God says: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Irenaeus took “image” to mean that humans have a conscience, intelligence, and a moral nature, and “likeness” to mean that humans can develop their moral nature to resemble God. So, to Irenaeus, humans were not created perfect but had the potential to become perfect through growing and learning.
Irenaeus claimed that God could have created humans to be perfect. Still, the process of becoming perfect by the disciplined exercise of free will would make morality attained more valuable and appreciable to humans. Similarly, he believed the world was also not perfect. For humans to have an environment conducive to learning morality, they had to endure the consequences of their actions and could value the good because of exposure to evil.
In simple terms, one can only appreciate warmth if one knows cold. Real compassion comes from knowing real pain, and the satisfaction of a full tummy comes from having known real hunger. Thus, the imperfect sets the stage for developing the ideal.
John Hick called the Irenaean theodicy “soul-making.” To Hick, it was not a matter of God being unable to intervene, but rather, that God chooses not to intervene so humans can exercise the free will they were created with. God keeps himself purposefully hidden and his existence uncertain, something Hick calls epistemic distance, to ensure that moral development is not due to fear of punishment or judgment. So, to Irenaeus and Hick, suffering allows moral development or “soul-making.”
There are many objections to the Irenaeus-Hicks view on theodicy. The two most notable would be the questionable ethics of using suffering and evil to teach morals and virtue, and the evidence that suffering often results in the opposite of moral development. Many people who brutalize others and commit crimes blame their actions on the suffering they endured earlier in life. Suffering, or evil, does not necessarily result in good.
The Augustinian Theodicy
Augustine, a late 4th and early 5th-century Church Father, built his theodicy on a mix of Platonic philosophy and biblical interpretation. To him, it was unthinkable that a perfect God could create something imperfect. He believed God, who is perfect, made a perfectly good world (Genesis 1:31) that knew no moral or natural evil. Evil resulted from the negation or privation of good, a concept Augustine called provatio boni.
Augustine argued that God made Adam and Eve with free will, which they used to turn away from good by their disobedience. Just as darkness is the natural result of the absence of light, so evil is the result of turning away from God who is good. Augustine posited that God made all angels good, but some angels received more grace than others. He never attempts to explain why. Some angels chose by free will to abandon what is good which resulted in evil. To Augustine, evil does not exist. Evil is not a real quality, it is, rather, the name given to the lack of good, just as darkness describes the absence of light while not being anything in itself.
Though many arguments oppose the Augustinian theodicy, we will consider only two here briefly. The first objection is that evil seems more real, definite, and definitive than Augustine’s theodicy suggests. Considering genocides and slavery as two pervasive examples throughout history, it feels like more than just the absence of the will to do good. His portrayal does little for the person experiencing real suffering.
John Hick presents another challenge. Commenting on Augustine’s views, he stated: “The idea of an unqualifiedly good creature sinning is self-contradictory and unintelligible.” Finitely perfect beings should never do evil or sin, even with free will.
The Free Will Defense
The Irenaean and Augustinian theodicies are Christian and are unlikely to appeal to non-Christians. But one element of both, free will, has become a defense likely to appeal to a much wider audience. It is simply called the free will defense.
The free will defense is not tethered to Christianity, but to any religion that believes in a god that creates humans with the ability to respond to their creator with absolute freedom of will. Inevitably, such a world would include good and evil. Whoever the god is, there may be no interference or limits set, for it would infringe on the freedom of will.
According to Richard Swinburne, the free will defense does not limit the scope of the issue to moral evil. It extends to natural evil as well, because natural evil, manifesting as droughts, floods, earthquakes, and a plethora of other events, sets the stage for attaining the purpose of god.
Hick also answers a challenge often lodged against theodicies: why is there so much evil? Could the same result not be attained with limited or the least required amount of evil? He argues that the amount of evil is a matter of perception. In a world where a flick of the ear was the worst that could happen, the person who did that would be considered like Hitler is in ours.
The Problem With Philosophies and Theodicies
The real issue in the problem of evil may well be one of presumption. From a Christian perspective, it assumes that humans, caught up in a world torn between good and evil, can grasp the details of the greater picture that involves the God who created that world, and his ongoing struggle with one who aims to disfigure and destroy it. Even the defenses proposed by Christians suppose knowledge that is no more than conjecture, interpretation, and a limited understanding of what the Bible reveals.
The Bible provides glimpses of what occurs “behind the scenes” in the Book of Job, Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, and Revelation 12, and may reveal some aspects of why evil exists. It never shows the full picture. Arguably the most relevant section of scripture addressing this topic is also one of the oldest books in the Bible: the Book of Job.
Job is not privy to what occurs when Satan appears before God and makes false claims about the faith of Job (Job 1 and 2). Job suffers the consequences without understanding it, and his wife and friends add to his struggles when they attempt to understand his situation. In the end, after an undisclosed duration of time and after many questions posed to God to understand his situation and why he, a righteous man, has suffered so much, God answers.
God asks Job where he was when God created the world and the many things it contains (Job 38-41). It was a way to show Job that he understands very little of the greater picture. Job responds: “I know that you can do all things and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.” (Job 42:2-3)
What many people overlook in their evaluation of the problem of evil in a Christian context is that God is not a passive observer. He sent his son to suffer for the sake of others. He was exposed to evil and died because of it.
Christians understand that they cannot understand everything now, for “now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (1 Corinthians 13:12). To Christians, their hope lies in complete restoration and the promise that the problem of evil will be settled and understood at the appointed time.
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:3-4).
