The Problem of Evil The Theistic Problem

Why a Problem? Suffering simply happens; why is this a problem? Any compassionate being (human or otherwise) would like to see suffering relieved, or at least explained On the sheer presence of suffering: all experience it, the question is how to understand suffering in the context of life generally, not just our own personal lives. The relief of suffering impulse must deal with the value of suffering – we learn. Theistic doctrines do not seem to offer either present relief from, or consistent explanation of, suffering.

Epicurus’ classic formulation of the theistic version of this problem Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is God able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then evil?

Kinds of Suffering Natural (caused by natural laws) Earthquakes, droughts, etc Moral (causes by moral agents) War, murder, rape

The Suffering Dilemma The Definition of God The Data of Experience “God” is defined as omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. OOG = this definition The Data of Experience There is personal and historical evidence of massive suffering

Simple Solutions to the Problem of Evil The problem is presented as a polarity of opposites. Hence, denying the truth or accuracy of one of the poles will easily resolve the problem in the abstract. 1. If God is indifferent or malevolent, evil makes positive sense. 2. If there is no evil (that is, if suffering can be explained), then the existence of the OOG God is not challenged.

Beyond the Simple Solutions Doctrinal and common-sense considerations work against simple solutions of this problem. Theodicy: A justification of the ways of God to humans, by offering explanations of both kinds of suffering in light of the existence of an all-powerful God. “theo” “dikē” god justice

On the Relativity of Defining “Evil” It can be argued that suffering is not evil. If so, suffering requires no particular explanation. Example 1: Suffering is a part of, or a means to, a greater good. Example 2: Evil is not a positive reality which opposes good, but is rather a privation or lack of good.

Responses to the idea that Evil is a Privation of Good ■ Assumes that “goodness” is a metaphysical rather than moral idea: “Good” = “complete,” full being “Evil” = “incomplete,” deviation from fully developed nature ■ Assumes that “goodness” and “perfection” are equivalent ■ May assume the OOG God: To most humans, certain kinds of suffering just are morally unacceptable.

The Logical v. the Evidential Problem of Evil Just how strong is this claimed incompatibility between God and evil? It is insurmountable (the logical assertion) It is strongly persuasive (the evidential problem)

The Logical Problem of Evil The logical problem focuses on the compatibility of the following two claims: 1. “God is omnipotent, omniscient and loving.” 2. “Suffering exists, and is evil.” Alternately put: It is claimed that the “evil” of suffering is logically incompatible with the “good” of God, much as the claim that “this is red” is logically incompatible with the claim that “this is not colored.

Assumptions of the Logical Problem 1. A good thing always eliminates evil, as far as it can. 2. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

Response to the Logical Problem – Assumption 1 It may not be true that a good thing always eliminates evil. ■ It is possible that some evil (suffering) is necessary to some end or some state of reality. Necessary suffering is suffering which is proportionate to a particular goal/state of reality, and which is apportioned justly to suffering beings.

Response to the Logical Problem – Assumption 2 “Omnipotence” does not necessarily entail the power to do what is logically impossible. Creating a square circle Controlling a free being Counter-Response: If logic itself is created by God, then God is not bound by logical possibility or impossibility.

The Evidential Problem of Evil The evidential problem questions the likelihood of God’s existence (as described), given the quantity and quality of human suffering that has existed throughout history. This problem defines such suffering as gratuitous (v. necessary). Most responses to the problem of evil address this evidential issue.

Examples of Responses to the Evidential Problem of Evil Evil is necessary as a means to good. ■ Evil builds character ■ Good cannot be recognized/appreciated without the recognition/perception of evil. Evil is due to human free will.

Discussion of the Problem of Evil Importance of the distinction between the logical v. the evidential problem of evil ■ Importance of avoiding question- begging; theodicies should not assume the OOG God

A Final Thought It cannot be presumed that suffering is justified. The point of argument is to demonstrate from objective data and principles, that one’s conclusion is supported. This raises a troublesome question: if joy and suffering is ambiguous in life, why assume that God prefers the former (other than, of course, the assumption that this is what He would prefer)?