The Nature of the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil presents a significant challenge to many Christians, particularly due to the belief in a God characterized by classical theism. This God is regarded as omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-good), and omniscient (all-knowing). Many argue that it is logically incompatible for such a God to exist alongside the extensive suffering and evil present in the world. This profound dilemma was first articulated by the philosopher Epicurus and later reformulated by J.L. Mackie through his concept of the 'inconsistent triad'. Mackie posits that at least one of these three propositions must be false: God exists, God is all-good, and evil exists. While moral evil can often be attributed to human free will, natural evil presents a more complex challenge. Michael Patterson comments on the severity of this issue, stating, "Something is dreadfully wrong with our world," by referencing horrors such as earthquakes, illnesses, and widespread famine, thus underscoring the logical problem of evil.

In contrast, the evidential problem of evil, advanced by philosophers like William Rowe, takes an inductive approach. Rowe contends that the sheer quantity, intensity, and apparent pointlessness of suffering render the existence of God highly improbable. He cites instances of animal suffering and historic atrocities such as the Holocaust, challenging the belief that any unnecessary evil could possibly have a justifiable reason. Rowe asserts, "the idea that none of this suffering could have been prevented seems an extraordinary absurd idea, quite beyond our belief." For atheists, evil and suffering are not merely problems to be resolved; rather, they serve as arguments against belief in a benevolent, omnipotent deity.

William Rowe's logical problem of evil argues that while some instances of evil might lead to a greater good (termed "justified evil"), an overwhelming amount of evil seems to lack justification. He illustrates this point by describing the plight of a fawn suffering a painful death in a forest fire—an instance considered to lack any evidentiary benefits that could justify its existence. Rowe thus presents a challenge to theodicy, positing that it is "beyond our belief" that every instance of suffering contributes positively to a greater good.

Similarly, Gregory Paul bolsters this argument by highlighting the appalling suffering of children, estimating that around 50 billion children have died prematurely throughout history, as well as over 300 billion conceptions that ended in miscarriage. He labels this tragic toll as the "Holocaust of the Children," arguing that if a deity resembling the God of classical theism exists, such a being cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He views the world itself as "merciless or ruthless," which renders theism implausible. Additionally, John Stuart Mill presents a moral and empirical critique of theistic belief in his work, "Nature and the Utility of Religion." In addressing the design argument, Mill states that if the structure of nature implies an intelligent designer, the existence of evil suggests the presence of a cruel designer, devoid of moral order, as pain and suffering are often unrelated to human agency. Thus, this perceived lack of moral order leads atheists to reject the idea of a God aligned with classical theism, claiming that, if God did exist, He would likely be a harsh, cruel deity.

The Augustinian Theodicy

The Augustinian theodicy, formulated by St. Augustine of Hippo, attempts to reconcile the problem of evil through the notion that the essential goodness of God allows the existence of evil as a consequence of free will. Augustine adopts a Neo-Platonic perspective, proposing that evil is a privation of good (privatio boni). In his work "Confessions," he states, "the loss of good has received the name evil." He illustrates his point using the analogy of light and darkness, indicating that while light represents an actual force, darkness is merely the absence of light. Accordingly, it is impossible for God to have created evil, as evil does not exist as a tangible substance. Augustine further emphasizes that God created the world as perfectly good, referencing Genesis with, "God saw all that He had made, and it was very good." The appearance of evil stems from the action of humans, who introduced it through the act of sin.

Augustine's explanation also ties to the idea of original sin, referring to Genesis' depiction of Adam and Eve. He posits that humanity is inherently flawed due to this original sin, which corrupts human nature. Adam, as the representative of mankind, bears the weight of this universal corruption, which explains why humans possess the capacity for sin, thereby diminishing God's culpability for evil in the world. Without free will, Augustine asserts, human choices would become meaningless, akin to robotic actions devoid of accountability and consequence. He contends that humanity, since the fall of man, has become more susceptible to natural evils such as diseases and death.

Augustine also introduces the notion of Divine Justice, postulating that God is merciful and employs suffering to guide and correct humanity. In "Enchiridion," he claims, "every wicked person shall either meet with punishment or be converted." He offers two primary explanations for God's non-intervention in the presence of moral evil: firstly, humans deserve to bear the consequences of Adam and Eve's initial sin, implicating all humanity in their fall. Secondly, the continuous misuse of free will by humanity perpetuates moral evil, placing the onus of responsibility on humans rather than on God. Augustine further argues that human understanding of God’s purpose is limited, stating that humanity's finite perception cannot fully comprehend God’s reasoning behind the existence of suffering and evil. To accept evil as part of God’s grand design requires faith that allows humanity to acknowledge their limited perspective.

Augustine ends his theory by affirming God's infinite benevolence exemplified through the incarnation and the crucifixion of Jesus. The implications of human sin warrant eternal punishment; however, the gift of Jesus provides a means for redemption. This duality of justice and mercy puts forth a compelling case for God’s benevolence.

Strengths of the Augustinian Theodicy

Coherent definition of evil: The distinction between evil being a privation of good reinforces God’s inherent goodness, thereby avoiding attributing blame to God for the existence of evil.
Emphasis on human free will: This perspective offers an explanation for moral evils as derived from humans misusing their free will, supporting the notion that God has endowed humans with the dignity of moral choice.
Divine justice: Augustine posits that evil leads to suffering, which serves as a disciplinary measure intended to correct human wrongdoing. This view aligns with Biblical justice, drawing support from contemporary philosophers like Alvin Plantinga.
Acknowledgment of human ignorance: By recognizing that humans possess a limited understanding of God’s intricate plans, Augustine highlights the inadequacy of human perception in grappling with divine intentions. This weakens the evidential problem of evil, suggesting that humanity's comprehension is insufficient to discern God's overarching motives.

Weaknesses of the Augustinian Theodicy

Logical inconsistency: Critics like Friedrich Schleiermacher argue that a perfect creation should not descend into corruption; if it did, then a flaw inherently existed.
Literal interpretation reliance: The argument heavily relies on the Genesis account, particularly Genesis 3’s truth. If deemed a myth, as some scholars assert, the foundational premise of original sin collapses.
Implied theological determinism: While asserting free will, Augustine suggests that all humans inherit original sin, which might imply that sin is unavoidable, thereby undermining the authenticity of human freedom.
Perceived injustice in God’s justice: By arguing that all suffering is consequence of original sin, Augustine implies that innocent suffering, particularly in children, is morally just, provoking criticisms that this characterization paints God as cruel.

The Irenaean Theodicy

The Irenaean theodicy, proposed by St. Irenaeus, offers a soul-making perspective that reconciles the existence of evil and suffering with the character of a benevolent God. Unlike Augustine, Irenaeus acknowledges that God is partially responsible for the existence of moral evil but does so for a greater purpose. He contends that God intentionally created people as imperfect beings meant to develop towards His divine perfection. Irenaeus likens the world to a "training ground" for souls, where individuals can cultivate moral and spiritual attributes essential for divine likeness.

Irenaeus emphasizes that being made in God's image does not guarantee moral perfection; thus, moral evil permeates human existence. The journey toward achieving God's likeness entails overcoming challenges through free will and moral choices. He employs the analogy of God as a craftsman, articulating, "The soul gradually advances and makes progress through means of its gradual assimilation to an union with the word of God." Irenaeus posits that genuine free will grants humans the capability to choose, which necessitates the presence of moral evil, as it cultivates resilience and virtues like perseverance and courage.

In alignment with this viewpoint, Theo Hick builds on Irenaeus’ theories, elucidating that natural evil also plays a necessary role in the development of authentic moral character. Hick suggests that God maintains "epistemic distance," allowing humanity to engage their free will genuinely, without coercion, enabling humans to mold themselves in accordance with God’s likeness. Consequently, the coexistence of evil and suffering invites moral and spiritual growth.

Strengths of the Irenaean Theodicy

Emphasis on moral development: John Hick argues the existence of evil is justified within the context of soul-making, allowing humans to cultivate virtues through life experiences.
Fosters a sense of community: The theodicy reinforces that suffering can engender empathy and compassion among individuals, promoting moral growth and community responsibility.
Hope for future redemption: The eschatological component suggests that all suffering will ultimately be redeemed, providing solace regarding moral justice that transcends earthly existence.

Weaknesses of the Irenaean Theodicy

Inconsistent triad issue: Critics argue that extreme and gratuitous suffering remains problematic, typically not aligning with an omnipotent and benevolent God.
Weak scriptural foundation: The theodicy often lacks direct scriptural backing, leaning more on speculative philosophy than biblical evidence.
Inability to address the scale of suffering: Atrocities such as genocide seem disproportionate to the requirements of soul-making, raising doubts about the justification for such extreme suffering.
Neglects animal suffering: The anthropocentric focus fails to account for nonhuman suffering, such as that experienced by animals which cannot participate in moral development.

Process Theodicy

Process theodicy, developed by philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, challenges the traditional concept of omnipotence and proposes that the problem of evil should prompt a reevaluation of God's attributes. Instead of presenting God as an unchanging, all-powerful entity, this theodicy asserts that God is dynamic and engages in a continuous interaction with the world, both influencing and being influenced by it.

The view posits that God is not completely separate from the world; rather, He permeates all aspects of reality. This perspective presents a God who is more relatable and active in humanity's growth, albeit with diminished responsibility for the existence of evil. Opposing classical theism, process theodicy argues that God cannot unilaterally terminate evil but instead works through persuasion rather than coercion, allowing humans the freedom to choose. Whitehead refers to this approach as Divine Lure, denoting God’s efforts to inspire and guide positive moral behavior.

Strengths of Process Theodicy

Compassionate deity: The portrayal of God as a being devoid of coercive power, who lovingly guides rather than dominates, enhances the dignity of human freedom and moral responsibility.
Positive outlook: The theodicy encourages a view of adversity as an opportunity for moral and spiritual growth, fostering resilience amidst hardship.

Weaknesses of Process Theodicy

Insufficient theodicy status: Critics argue that this perspective fails to provide a true theodicy, as it does not reconcile the existence of evil with a God of classical theism, instead fundamentally altering the concept of God's nature.
Gratuitous evil explanation failure: Process theodicy does not adequately address instances of gratuitous evil that operate outside an apparent moral framework.
Worship-worthy dilemma: Detractors argue that this diminished view of God's power results in a deity not worthy of worship, particularly regarding historical atrocities like the Holocaust.

Evil and suffering in the writings of Albert Camus

In his literary works, including "The Plague," "The Outsider," and "The Fall," Camus explores themes of innocent suffering and the nature of evil. He critiques humanity's tendency to rationalize suffering, portraying it as fundamentally meaningless. The perspectives of his characters often reflect deeper existential inquiries—be it through Meursault’s detached response to his mother’s death or Clamence’s indifference to suffering, emphasizing the emotional detachment surrounding human suffering.

In "The Plague," Fr. Paneloux delivers sermons that echo Augustine’s views, asserting that suffering stems from divine punishment for humanity’s disloyalty to God. He claims the calamity befallen them is deserved, offering a rationale for evil that emphasizes submission and prayer. Conversely, Dr. Rieux represents an atheistic opposition, seeking solutions through science and rational action. He reflects a more profound skepticism toward the idea of a benevolent God, questioning the morality of divine actions amidst suffering.

Both Dr. Rieux and Fr. Paneloux confront the implications of innocent suffering, especially through the tragic deaths of children during the plague. Rieux vehemently rejects any justification for innocent suffering, highlighting the inherent tragedy in a world filled with unwarranted pain. The tension between these perspectives illustrates the broader philosophical discourse regarding the problem of evil.

Evil and suffering in the writings of Fyodor Dostoyevsky

In "The Brothers Karamazov," Dostoyevsky raises significant critiques surrounding the problem of evil through contrasting character perspectives—particularly the philosophical debates between Ivan, Alyosha, and Father Zosima. Father Zosima posits that suffering is an unavoidable aspect of life, asserting that redemptive qualities lie in compassion and acceptance of divine purpose. He contends that individual responsibility encompasses not just personal sins but societal accountability, asserting, "Everyone is responsible for everyone and for everything."

Conversely, Ivan’s rejection of innocent suffering challenges the legitimacy of God's existence. His emotional revolt emphasizes the need for a rational understanding of suffering; he provocatively notes that the endurance required for moral growth should not come at the cost of horrific atrocities, particularly regarding children. His statement, "I return my ticket," metaphorically signifies his refusal to accept a world steeped in suffering as justifiable. In stark contrast, Alyosha embodies a faith-driven acceptance of suffering, espousing a more positive outlook that aligns with the Augustinian view of moral responsibility. Acknowledging the deep emotional and philosophical complexity of evil, Dostoyevsky contends that suffering remains an integral component of the human experience, often defying practical explanation but persisting as part of God’s broader plan.

John Hick's modification of the Irenaean Theodicy

John Hick modernizes Irenaeus' theodicy, reinforcing the notions of soul-making through moral challenges and deepening human relationships with God. Emphasizing the potential for growth, Hick characterizes life as a "vale of soul-making," where development requires encounters with adversity. He introduces the concept of epistemic distance, asserting that God intentionally remains hidden from humans, allowing them genuine free will in their moral choices. Without this distance, the human engagement with morality would revert to obligation rather than genuine choice.

Moreover, Hick’s view extends to include both moral and natural evils, underlining their necessity in fostering virtues like courage and compassion. He posits that suffering not only brings individuals closer to God but ultimately serves to cultivate resilience and empathy within humanity. Hick concludes that suffering will be redeemed in the afterlife, presenting a vision of universal salvation where every soul ultimately encounters divine perfection—a final justification for suffering endured in life.

Richard Swinburne’s views on Natural Evil

Richard Swinburne contributes a detailed analysis regarding natural evil in his work, positing that such occurrences are essential for humans to develop morally and spiritually. He advocates for a free will defense, explaining that the existence of natural laws necessitates the potential for suffering; this framework enriches human life with moral significance. Swinburne aligns with Hick by asserting that natural evil—like natural disasters—enables moral actions such as caregiving and altruism, fostering human growth in the face of challenge.

While this view posits a necessary role for evil and suffering, critics like William Rowe contest the adequacy of this justification, particularly arguing that excessive suffering, such as the pain endured by animals or children, seems devoid of purpose. Even so, Swinburne suggests that even these instances may be enmeshed in a grander scheme that humanity cannot fully comprehend. Thus, he presents natural evil not as a fault in creation, but rather as integral to a freely operating world, replete with opportunities for genuine moral choices.

The Free Will Defense Argument

The Free Will Defense articulates a response to the problem of evil, directly associating the existence of evil as an unavoidable outcome of human free will. Rooted in biblical Genesis, this argument suggests that the misuse of free will by Adam and Eve initiated moral evil while also embedding natural evil through original sin. It defines evil not as an entity but rather as a deficit of good.

This argument finds support among contemporary theologians and philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, John Hick, and Richard Swinburne, who assert that moral development is indeed contingent on the genuine existence of free will. Hick exemplifies this notion by hypothesizing that if God had created beings that always chose good, the essence of free will would be compromised. He reinforces the parental analogy, emphasizing that like a good parent who allows children to learn through mistakes, God permits suffering to foster growth. Swinburne elaborates on this, iterating that natural disasters serve as a canvas upon which humans exhibit moral virtues in response to adversity. In a similar vein, philosopher Peter Vardy invokes an analogy of love, where genuine love necessitates the freedom to choose, reinforcing the premise that humanity encounters moral agency only where space for genuine decision-making is present. In contrast, J.L. Mackie disputes this argument by illustrating that a benevolent God could have created beings with an innate disposition to choose good, a premise which reframes the nature of free will itself.

The Problem of Evil: A Comprehensive Study

The Problem of Evil: A Comprehensive Study