Apologetics: The Problem of Evil

Previously, we went over a number of arguments for the existence of God. In this lecture, I’ll be taking a more defensive stance in responding to an argument against God’s existence. Another contrast between my last presentation and this one is that this one is going to be messier. Arguments for God’s existence, while interesting, worthy of study, and potentially significant precursors to faith, are often esoteric or cerebral. They engage our minds without necessarily arousing our hearts. Dealing with the problem of evil, or suffering, or pain as it is alternatively referred, is going to be much more personal. We’re not talking about necessary beings or intelligent designers who may be hard to imagine at first. We’re talking about something much more immediately pressing. Everyone has suffered. Somewhere in all of our lives right now, we are hurting. Our charge is to consider the deeper truths behind those hurts, the hows and whys of what afflicts us and our world.

Because of the prevalence of pain, the problem of pain is at the top of many atheists’ or agnostics’ lists for why they don’t believe. Personally, it was an encumberance prior to my conversion. But this discussion isn’t exclusively relevant for nonChrististians. We’ve all been tempted by despair. All of us have had our faith strained by grief. There’s no shame in admitting so. We can draw upon that shared experience whenever we talk about evil and our familiarity with it. May we all be consoled by the good reasons for evil we’ll be going over.

Before we begin, we need to frame our expectations about what our counterarguments can accomplish. These objections can be dealt with rationally to the extent that they deny God’s existence. Frequently, though, we’re thinking about more than just suffering when we’re disagreeing about beliefs. Raw emotions and spiritual wounds surround these disputes and require more than argumentation to overcome. A person may be more intellectually satisfied by what follows, but we recognize the need for the soul to be healed as well. That’s going to involve love, prayer, and God’s work. One should be sensitive and patient here as elsewhere.

Lastly, I want to add that we shouldn’t limit our responses to the suffering in our midst with apologetics. We have so much more to offer. We can aid them with more than argumentation. Indeed, during those troubles, it’s those other means of aid that more swiftly meet others’ needs. We are called to bear each others’ burdens as Christ bore ours on the Cross. Accordingly, we’re encouraged and empowered to grieve with our neighbors and care for them, whether or not they fear the Lord. Think of what you can do for them, not just what you can say to them.

When you speak, be especially careful. Saying something glib in a time of trial is inappropriate. I can think of few utterances more damaging to our mission than to attribute blame for a tragedy on those who are suffering. Were it true, it still wouldn’t be timely. We can affirm the godliness of weeping and mourning over decay and destruction. Christ himself wept with sorrow at our afflictions. When appropriate, we can attest that tragedy, sickness, and death are not what God wanted for us.

Introduction: The Problem Defined and Explained

The problem of evil concerns the apparent contradiction between God’s existence and evil’s existence. Because traditional theists believe that God is perfect and all that it entails, imperfections in his creation are problematic. The more stringently we claim that God is holy, glorious, and worthy of worship, the more certain aspects of reality are going to look incompatible with divine providence. The problem of evil is built on those aspects.

Although there are many, many formulations, there are basically two kinds of problems of evil: the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem. The logical problem of evil is more philosophical since it deals with beliefs and what they entail. The evidential problem of evil is more practically rooted since it deals with facts about existence and what they suggest. After the logical problem is answered, the discussion frequently transitions into a debate over the evidential problem. Accordingly, we’ll touch briefly on the logical problem but spend most of our time dealing with the evidential.

Each of the problems warrants its own kind of response. There are two primary theistic responses to the two basic problems of evil: defenses and theodicies. Defenses seek to refute the logical problem of evil. I’ll define what a theodicy is later, but for the time being, let me just say theodicies seek to rebut the evidential problem of evil. We’ll discuss both in the following, but, as I mentioned we’ll be spending much more time on theodicies because the evidential problem of evil is the more pervasive problem. Also, I should point out the two sorts of responses are more different in their function than in their essence. A defense could be retooled to be a theodicy and vice versa.

Kinds of Evil

As with any large, complicated issue, it’s helpful to break the issue down into parts. To begin, what do we mean when we say evil exists? When we say there is evil in the world, we’re usually speaking of two different kinds of evil: natural and moral evil. Natural evils are those evils that arise in the course of natural events. Diseases, birth defects, pestilences, physical pain: all of these are natural evils. Moral evils are those evils that are perpetrated by a moral agent, which is a fancy word for a person. Theft, murder, emotional manipulation, violence: all of these are moral evils.

Importantly, the kind of evils brought up in your conversations will warrant different kinds of responses. While defenses tend to refute the perceived inconsistency of evil generally with the notion of a perfect God, theodicies aim to justify one sort of evil or the other, natural or moral. You’ll want to respond to a given objection with an argument that’s germane to the sort of evil you’re addressing.

Before we move on, I should also add that some Christians are opposed to defending God in any way. They don’t consider humans to be qualified to pass judgment, even favorable judgment, on God or his actions. They say that doing so reverses our proper roles and replaces God above with people below.

They have a point. To put it mildly, God is our superior. Recall, God does not acquiesce and address Job's accusations. When confronted by God, it’s Job who gives way. He rescinds his objections after being put in his place. However, what we’re doing in this lecture is not as much passing judgment on God as it is neutralizing judgments the have already been passed by our fellow humans. Whether or not we defend God, people are indicting him every time a child dies, a person cries in pain, or an animal is maimed. Although God doesn’t need our help or exoneration, our brothers and sisters could use our loving aid. As I said in our first class, apologetics is an act of love.

Logical Problem of Evil

The logical problem of evil relies upon the three attributes I listed earlier, namely 1) God’s goodness, 2) knowledge, and 3) power. Elaborating on those three attributes which Christians would agree with, the problem says a good God would want what is best for his creation, an omniscient God would know everything about his creation, and an omnipotent God would be able to do whatever he wanted. So, God wouldn’t want there to be evil, would know about any evil in his creation, and would prevent evil from occurring. Evil and God are shown to be antithetical. The logical problem of evil holds that believing in a perfect God’s existence and believing in evil’s existence is inconsistent.

This argument is deductive, meaning it is based on propositions that, if true, render the logically drawn conclusion certainly true. The logical problem of evil attempts to conclude either evil exists or God exists. This means that theists who continue to believe in a perfect God are irrational. They believe contradictions are true.

A Defense

A defense attempts to show there is no contradiction between evil’s existence and God’s existence. It doesn’t deny the validity of the logical problem of evil. A defense denies the soundness of it. A defense says the premise that a perfect God wouldn’t permit any evil to exist is false. If there is a good reason why a wholly good, omnipotent, omniscient being would allow evil, there is no logical contradiction between evil's existence and God's existence. Defenses do not have to offer an account of why God really does permit any or all evil. It must only prove that a morally satisfactory reason is possible.

Now, a morally satisfactory reason can be considered one that overcomes evil with a greater good. For example, a doctor setting someone’s broken bone is painful, but the doctor has a morally satisfactory reason for doing so. When the bone heals properly, it won’t be misaligned or less functional  in the future. The long-term good justifies the short-term evil. Other types of morally satisfactory reasons include those that are required by justice, regardless of outcomes, or those that achieve higher ends.

Let’s briefly review a defense that uses greater goods to justify evil. God can use evil to bring about greater or more complex good. Briefly put, this defense states it is better for greater goods to overcome evil than for no evil to exist at all. Patience and courage aren’t possible without tedium, oppression, or obstacles  Sympathy and compassion require sadness and affliction. Generosity requires an imbalance of resources. Without evil, we would have nothing to be sympathetic, compassionate, or generous about. Unmerited suffering, in particular, makes the highest kinds of human moral excellence possible because it potently activates our moral sympathies. The good samaritan couldn’t have been good had the traveller not been attacked.

Now, we’re not claiming this is why all evil happens. Some evil is never followed by virtuous, loving reparations. Nor are we claiming that God wants evil for this purpose. He is wholly beneficent. Nor are we saying you can’t have good without evil. God is perfectly good. We’re making a claim about the relative value of certain goods against evil. We are here only presenting one defense that shows that some evil and God are not necessarily inconsistent. Nor should that reason be offered in isolation. It’s the first line in a sketch.

We could review other defenses or objections to the defense I just offered, but we it isn’t necessary. The logical problem of evil gives way once we have shown there may be a possible reason for the evil. The logical problem’s disjunction of either/or has been plausibly dismissed. We saw it was possible for evil in our universe and God over our universe to co-exist.

We move on, then, to the evidential problem.

The Evidential Problem of Evil

The evidential problem of evil is the one that arises in response to lived affliction, so that is the problem we ought to consider most pressing. This is the one that comes up naturally in the course of life rather than in a philosophy course. What we as apologists are basically in pursuit of are possible reasons that God may have for allowing the various and sundry evils with which we’re faced.

It’s called the evidential problem of evil because all that’s wrong with our world is taken to at least be evidence against God’s perfection and at most be evidence against God’s existence. If the evidential problem of evil isn’t surmounted, the theist is left with unsavory options. Either God can’t stop what’s wrong (because his power is limited), or he won’t stop what’s wrong (because his goodness is limited), or the he’s in some sense wicked.

This argument is inductive, which means, it’s based on observations about reality. The evidential problem of evil arises when atheists claim they win because it’s easier to deny God’s existence than to deny evil’s existence. The evidential problem asks whether the amount of evil present and the lack of adequate reasons for those evils makes it more or less likely the universe is created and run by a perfect God.

Theodicies

In the event you aren’t familiar with the term, check its origin. Theodicy comes from two Greek roots, theos, meaning God, and dicey, meaning justice. A theodicy is a vindication of God in that it provides justification for God’s perfection in the face of evil.

For the first five theodicies listed below, I’ve relied upon a helpful framework for common theodicies from Daniel Howard-Snyder’s essay, “God, Evil, and Suffering.” That essay is included in the Reason for the Hope Within book on my works consulted list. As we go along, I’ll by identifying their usefulness in justifying natural evils, moral evils, or both.

Punishment Theodicy

First, we can argue that God would be justified in allowing evil to fall on those who deserve it. This is the rationale behind the punishment theodicy. We have numerous Scriptural supports as well as common sense supports for this sort of theodicy. God justly and retributively punishes wrong-doing with suffering. (Prov. 13:21) Although bad things happening to good people are more noteworthy, bad things happen to bad people, too. In many ways, we suffer from our misdeeds, be it in alienation from our peers or the psychological damage inflicted by vicious living

In a further elaboration on this account, Genesis supports the view that natural evil exists as a punishment for humanity’s disobedience. We must toil for our food, we must work among thorns and thistles, we will be harmed, and we will eventually die because of the misdeeds of angels like Satan and humans like Adam and Eve. (Gen 3:14-19; Ezek 28:11-19). That said, appealing to Scriptural accounts of evil with those who are don’t invest it with any authority has meager affect.

Of course, this theodicy is not universally applicable. We need to make it clear we’re not arguing that all evil is punishment. While it is true that some instances of suffering are in accordance with God’s justice, we know it is false that every instance of suffering is merited by the sufferer’s previous wrongdoing. We can think of and have known many instances in which suffering is underserved, or at least is undeserved insofar as we are able to understand it. So, this theodicy alone is unlikely to overrule objections.

Free Will Theodicy

The Free Will Theodicy attempts to explain how moral evil can be justified. It states that moral evil, the sort that Adam and Eve engaged in when they disobeyed God, exists as a necessary consequence of freedom. A moral action can't be free if we can’t act graciously or maliciously. Thinking about this with the terms we used in our discussion of defenses, the greater good we’re appealing to is moral responsibility. Being moral agents is very, very good. It gives our life purpose and is the foundation of justice. We can’t be moral agents unless we can really chose to do good or evil. If God wanted to create creatures who could be justly praised or blamed, they must be capable of disobeying the good laws he has set out. If moral goodness requires free creatures, a good God would desire to create a world with the possibility of evil.

Note, however, this rationale, on its own, does not account for natural evil. You’ll need to dovetail this theodicy with one or more of the others, such as...

Natural Consequences Theodicy

The natural consequences theodicy points to the good effects of evil to justify evil’s existence. Briefly put, evil and suffering discourage us from reliance upon the world for our deepest needs. By this theodicy, God uses evil to teach us. Suffering can teach us of our weaknesses and prompt us to take refuge in God. Evil shows us we are separated from Him, that we are inadequate in ourselves, and that the world is not enough to preserve and satisfy us. Pain tells us that all is not well with us alone. These prepare us to will that God would enter our lives and repair us. (Heb. 12:7-11; 2 Cor. 1:8-10; ) CS Lewis makes a similar case in the Problem of Pain by suggesting pain and suffering can assist our development since it makes clear our relationship to creation and our need for God.

Eleonore Stump, a philosopher at St. Louis University, claims that a world full of evil and suffering is "conducive to bringing about both the initial human [receipt of God's gift of salvation] and also the subsequent process of sanctification" (Stump 1985, p. 409) I’ll quote her at length since I think she summarizes the argument well.

“Natural evil—the pain of disease, the intermittent and unpredictable destruction of natural disasters, the decay of old age, the imminence of death—takes away a person's satisfaction with himself. It tends to humble him, show him his frailty, make him reflect on the transience of temporal goods, and turn his affections towards other-worldly things, away from the things of this world. No amount of moral or natural evil, of course, can guarantee that a man will [place his faith in God].... But evil of this sort is the best hope, I think, and maybe the only effective means, for bringing men to such a state.” (Stump 1985, p. 409)

To review, we can say that evil came into the world through man’s free choice and that natural evil is punishment for that evil act. Now, we can add that God uses both kinds of evil to show us our faults and our need for perfecting.

Natural Law Theodicy

The next stop on our theodicical tour is natural law theodicy. It states that natural evils are a consequence of natural laws. There’s a lot to this, I think.  Order is a double-edge sword. Having boundaries keeps you from getting lost, but it also hems you in.

We talked in our discussion of teleological arguments for the existence of God about how important natural laws and physical constants are in order to make life possible. Sometimes these laws harm us even though they sustain us.  Natural evils like tornadoes and earthquakes exist as a necessary consequence of habitability like temperature regulation and plate tectonics. What makes water and fire useful also make it possible for us to drown and be burned. Likewise, some natural evil prevents greater natural evils. For instance, pain receptors prevents animals from being killed or maimed by deterring them from dangerous situations. All it takes for children to stay away from stovetops is to be burned once.

But there’s more than this. CS Lewis observes that we need natural laws in order to be moral. Natural laws and the natural evils that are their byproducts enable moral responsibility. Natural laws make cause and effect possible. We need to be able to predict the consequences of our actions. Knowledge of how to cause and prevent harm requires humans experience harm. Such knowledge makes for moral responsibility.

Higher-Order Goods Theodicy

The defense I offered earlier can be stated as a higher-order goods theodicy. Many theologians advocate for this sort of theodicy. Irenaeus, an early church father and apologist, argued God permits evil for the sake of human development as moral agents. Being made in the image and likeness of God means humans have the capacity for moral perfection. For us to approach that end, we must experience suffering and exercise our will toward the goal God assigned. Additionally, CS Lewis points out in the Problem of Pain that God's perfect love requires He would rather allow His loved ones to suffer than for them to be happy in contemptible ways or in modes that estrange them from Himself.

Another possible higher-order good is vicarious suffering. We can say that freely bearing others' burdens is worth the cost of burdens. Vicarious suffering is epitomized by Jesus. Jesus entered the world and suffered on our behalf, though he was innocent. These points provide a segue into our last, but not least, theodicy.

Christocentric Theodicy

It should come as no surprise that our greatest resources for responding to the problem of evil come from Christ. I did not lead with what I’m calling Christocentric theodicies because, on strictly logical grounds, doing so begs the question. We can’t support our counter-argument for the existence God by assuming his existence. At the same time, as these conversations develop and mature, after we’ve graciously listened to others’ grievances and spoken to them with arguments they can access regardless of their religious convictions, we ought to be welcome to put forward our own accounts.

Tim Keller writes in the Reason for God that although we don't have a full complete answer for every iteration of the problem of evil, we do have an idea. We know that God identifies with those who suffer. We know that God loves us enough to enter the world and suffer in our place. We know that God understands what it is to lose a loved one in an unjust attack. We know that suffering can have a purpose since He subjected Himself to it. He underwent this suffering to prepare the resurrection for us, a state of being that restores, perfects, and beautifies our lives, body, and world. We believe the Resurrection will justify all that has happened.

We know that, whatever God’s reasons are for allowing suffering, it can never be because He doesn’t care. God invested Himself personally and condescended to face the utmost trials and tribulations to spare us from the eternal suffering that is everlasting separation from the loving Father.

Another Christian philosopher, Peter Kreeft, suggests we need reassurances more than explanations when it comes to suffering. In the person of Jesus Christ, we receive a more concrete, complete answer to the problem of suffering than any list of reasons. Christ is a suffering God who blesses suffering by making it his own. He is ever-present, even in our current pains. He identifies with the least of us. He suffered on our behalf and made suffering triumphant. He died on our behalf and changed the meaning of death by his resurrection. Now, death is a beginning instead of an ending. We can be reassured that our suffering will pale in retrospect.

We ought not neglect the reality of atonement in God’s creation. Although the particular illnesses, afflictions, and hardships can baffle us, we’re called to trust and obey, not understand. Regardless of the apparent desserts, we can suffer for the sins of others. If we bear them faithfully and hopefully, we can bring glory to God while alleviating others’ burdens.

Additional Responses

Christian Consolations

The Problem of Evil strains the believer's relationship with God and is an impediment to belief for the unbeliever. More consolations about evil in the world are offered to the believer than the unbeliever, though. We’re steeled by the knowledge that Christ's death has defeated evil. (1 Cor 15:20-24) As Paul states, the elect's sufferings pale in comparison with their future glory. (Rom. 8:18) The impermanence of earthly evil is outweighed by the permanence of heavenly joy. Isaiah goes so far as to assert the present things will not be remembered or come to mind. (Is. 65:17-18)

When apparently good people suffer, John Calvin appeals to God’s hidden justice. His will cannot be separated from his justice. Whenever the innocent appear to suffer, we must have faith in a God who is hidden from us because of our own intellectual weakness, the scope of God’s revelation (Scripture provides us with the knowledge necessary for salvation, not with complete knowledge of God’s essence), and God’s self-concealment. Ultimately, we can expect a complete understanding of God’s purposes and vindication for God when the Resurrection sets everything aright.

From Scripture, we know that all evil and suffering are in God’s hands. Because God is in control, we interpret suffering differently than if it were a brute fact. His providence should be a consolation to His people. God causes evil and uses it instrumentally for His good and just purposes. God allows our earthly suffering for the sake of our possible Heavenly glory. (Eph. 1:11-12) Suffering can be a vehicle for personal regeneration that ends in eternal life. Thus, God allows evil to test and refine our faith. Suffering reveals the genuineness of faith. (1 Pet. 1:7) Evil exists to build trust between God and His people. (James 1:2-8, 12; Rev. 2:10) We can complete Christ's suffering by faithfully enduring trials in Him. (Phil 3:10; Col 1:24)

These consolations, however, are tangential rather than essential to the debate given that they presume God's existence.

Absence of Proof → ~ Proof of Absence

We’ve seen how multifaceted the the problem of evil can be and how much we may have to address in order to answer all the charges. Eventually, the discussion may devolve into being asked to provide reasons for a specific instance of suffering, why a particular child needed to be paralyzed, or a young father needed to die of cancer. Be careful not to take the bait and say something insensitive. To offer a rationale would be foolish. Although God is just and we believe he has His good reasons, speculating on His exact rationale is likely to make matters worse. It earned Job’s friends God’s castigation.

Instead, take the opportunity to speak on the limits of our knowledge. It is valid--and humane--to respond that just because you don’t know why a particular malady occurs doesn’t imply there isn’t one. While being neither a defense nor a theodicy, it is possible to respond that although we are unable to determine justifying reasons for a particular evil or the total amount of evil, it does not follow that there can be no such reason. Whether or not it's reasonable to conclude there are no such reasons depends on the extent of our ability to discover such reasons. There may be other intrinsic goods we are as yet unaware of. The complexity of the good required to justify atrocities would be such that it would  be too complex for us to grasp. We, as finite and fallible beings may not have an adequate indication of the reasons available to an omniscient, omnipotent being. God is not our peer and so he's not one of the beings whose rationale for acting is generally accessible.

Furthermore, hindsight often provides a perspective on truths we were unable to consider in the midst of our pain. Most people will admit that, once removed from periods of acute hardship, good followed. Tim Keller rhetorically asks if we can eventually see the reasons for some of our pain, why can’t we grant that God sees the reasons for all our pain? Keller suggests that if we had a heavenly perspective, we would be able to understand our pains in a truer context. He likens this perspective to the one a thirty year-old has on the grief he underwent when he was six.

If we can say that it is unlikely, given our intellect and our best efforts, that we could discover the justification for every evil, then we have defended ourselves against the atheist’s attack. It should seem reasonable, given our failure to reach a consensus on a comprehensive ethical system, that the moral realm is too intricate and nuanced for us to comprehensively rationalize within it. It follows that our lack of knowledge regarding a justification for a given evil does not entail that a justification does not exist. Indeed, going a step further, it seems all the more reasonable to claim that this is exactly the sort of knowledge that a being such as the God of the Bible has exclusively. Rather than admit defeat, we have won the opportunity to explain the limits of human knowledge and the need for an omniscient being.

John Calvin wrote about this. For Calvin, evil and God are real, but we aren’t able to fully understand why God permits evil. Although the Fall was done against God’s will, it was not done without God’s will. The Fall dramatically changed our ability to understand God’s providence.

The Alternative

At this time, it may be advisable to turn the table. That’s how CS Lewis began his book The Problem of Pain. He reframes the debate into a different problem altogether. He asks how humans could have ever conceived of attributing the universe to a wise, good Creator if it is as terrible as atheists suggest. He proposes that experience of the numinous and moral experience lead to this attribution, and these are the core of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The problem of evil isn’t just a problem for the theist or for the Christian. It’s a problem for the atheist, too. Those who would use the terrors in this world to contend there is no God overseeing it, frequently circle back to embracing this life with all its terrors. What are they to say about why people hurt, why people hurt each other, and why the world is so chaotic? Can their worldview support anything more than despair when faced with these grievous facts? Should they chose, like Albert Camus, to rebel against the indignity and absurdity of the world, will they be able to sustain their rebellion to the end on no greater grounds than personal preference for pleasure over pain or a dogged commitment to the brotherhood of man?

Suffering doesn’t become less of a problem without God. If the suffering is needless, then we live in a world where evil goes unpunished and pain is unredeemed. Evil is hopelessly, irreparably with us.

Keller, like Lewis before him, he reframes the debate. He begins by stating that the atheist should have a harder time dealing with evil than the theist, since for the former, there is no objective standard for justice with which to correct the natural realm.

Evil is of cosmic significance for the Christian because God has said He will set everything to rights. It is not something that will be ultimately forgotten or disregarded. Atheists and agnostics have no access to the sources to the hope of salvation and ultimate justice the Christian does. As Keller beautiful states, “Everything sad is going to come untrue and it will somehow be greater for having once been broken and lost.”

In closing, I’ll note that evangelism can enter the picture when we clarify our understanding of evil. Swapping out suffering for evil is not Scripturally sound. Christian doctrine defines suffering differently than we commonly know it. Some suffering is redemptive, meaning it can be exchanged for something greater. God has imbued suffering with the possibility of a purpose since He subjected Himself to it. He underwent this suffering to prepare the resurrection for us, a state of being that restores, perfects, and beautifies our lives, bodies, and world. We hold that Resurrection will justify all that has happened.

(return to Apologetics page)