Overview

The problem of evil is widely regarded as the most serious challenge to theistic belief. It questions how the existence of evil and suffering can be reconciled with belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God.

Basic Formulation

Epicurus' Trilemma:
"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?"

Types of Evil

Philosophers typically distinguish between two main types of evil: moral evil (caused by human actions) and natural evil (caused by natural processes like earthquakes, diseases, etc.).

The Logical Problem of Evil

The logical problem of evil argues that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of God.

Logical Argument:
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good
2. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, then evil does not exist
3. Evil exists
4. Therefore, God does not exist

J.L. Mackie's Version

Philosopher J.L. Mackie argued that the following propositions cannot all be true simultaneously:

  • God is omnipotent
  • God is perfectly good
  • Evil exists

Criticisms of the Logical Problem

Many philosophers now believe the logical problem of evil has been successfully refuted, primarily through the work of Alvin Plantinga's free will defense, which shows that the existence of evil is logically compatible with God's existence.

The Evidential Problem of Evil

The evidential problem argues that while evil may not logically prove God's non-existence, the amount and types of evil we observe provide strong evidence against God's existence.

William Rowe's Argument

Rowe's Evidential Argument:
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not 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

Examples of Gratuitous Evil

  • A fawn trapped in a forest fire, suffering for days before dying
  • Child abuse with no apparent greater good
  • Preventable natural disasters causing immense suffering

Skeptical Theism

Some philosophers respond with skeptical theism, arguing that humans are not in a position to judge whether apparent instances of gratuitous evil truly serve no greater good, given our cognitive limitations.

Theodicies

Theodicies attempt to justify God's permission of evil by showing how evil serves some greater good or is necessary for some divine purpose.

The Free Will Theodicy

Perhaps the most popular theodicy argues that evil results from God's gift of free will to humans:

  • Free will is intrinsically valuable
  • Free will necessarily includes the possibility of choosing evil
  • A world with free will (and evil) is better than a world without free will

Soul-Making Theodicy

John Hick argued that evil serves a soul-making purpose:

  • Moral and spiritual growth requires challenges
  • Evil provides opportunities for virtues like courage, compassion, and forgiveness
  • This life is a "vale of soul-making" rather than a paradise

Criticisms of Theodicies

Critics argue that many evils seem excessive for any plausible divine purpose, and that an omnipotent God could achieve the same goods without permitting such extensive suffering.

Natural Evils

Natural evils present a particular challenge because they don't seem to result from human free will choices.

Types of Natural Evil

  • Earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions
  • Diseases and genetic disorders
  • Droughts, floods, and extreme weather
  • Predation and animal suffering

Responses to Natural Evil

Common Responses:
• Natural laws necessary for human agency
• Character building through adversity
• Unknown divine purposes
• Punishment for human sin

Animal Suffering

The extent of animal suffering throughout evolutionary history poses a particular challenge, as animals cannot benefit from moral development and their suffering often serves no apparent purpose.

Moral Evils

Moral evils result from human choices and present questions about divine intervention and human responsibility.

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness

Related to moral evil is the question of why God doesn't intervene more clearly:

  • Why doesn't God prevent the worst atrocities?
  • Why is God's existence not more obvious to prevent evil choices?
  • How much evil is too much for a loving God to permit?

Historical Atrocities

Large-scale moral evils present particular challenges:

  • The Holocaust and genocides
  • Systematic oppression and slavery
  • Child abuse and exploitation

The Quantity Problem

Even if some evil might be justified for greater goods, critics argue that the sheer quantity of evil in the world exceeds what could plausibly be necessary for any divine purpose.

Assessment

The problem of evil remains one of the most discussed topics in philosophy of religion, with no consensus on its ultimate resolution.

Current State of the Debate

  • Logical Problem: Generally considered refuted by most philosophers
  • Evidential Problem: Still actively debated
  • Theodicies: Provide possible explanations but don't convince all critics

Implications for Belief

For Theists

Many theists maintain that while evil poses a serious challenge, it doesn't definitively disprove God's existence. They rely on theodicies, appeals to mystery, or modified concepts of divine attributes.

For Atheists

Many atheists view the problem of evil as strong evidence against theism, arguing that the world appears exactly as we would expect if no benevolent deity existed.

Final Considerations

The problem of evil illustrates the difficulty of reconciling abstract theological concepts with lived human experience. Whether it constitutes decisive evidence against theism may depend partly on one's broader worldview and the weight given to other considerations in the debate about God's existence.