The Problem of Evil
Introduction
Classical Theologians purport the idea of a God who is all knowing, all good and all powerful. This idea is supported by numerous religions across the globe, it has achieved this by making God seem like a benevolent big brother, someone who can fix our problems if only we know how to ask. Someone who looks after us. It is understandable why this idea might have been appealing to early Christians, having been persecuted for years it makes sense that they would have liked the idea of something watching over them, preventing them from coming to harm and blocking all assailants. However, the very existence of evil and suffering seem to serve as a counterpoint for such a God. If God were all knowing he would know how to stop evil, if God were all good he would want to stop evil and if God were all powerful he would be powerful enough to prevent evil. This contradiction between our experiences and our beliefs has become known as the problem of evil.
As with most things there are two sides to this debate, the Atheists argue that if the God of classical theism were to exist evil would not, whilst the Theists are convinced of the plausibility of the two coexisting, some even go so far as to suggest we have not experienced actual evil and have merely scaled evil based on our experience. I myself, despite being an atheist, believe that there is no way for our logic to reliably prove or disprove the existence of a higher being as we are generally incapable of imagining things beyond our cognition.
The problem is as follows:
God is all Good
God is all Powerful
God is all Knowing
Evil Exists
Atheists believe that there is a logical inconsistency between (1) and (4) as it is highly improbable for there to be a scenario in which all four exist simultaneously. They do concede however that it is logically possible for any three of those statements to be true at the same time. Therefore it can be deduced that if it is not theoretically possible for all four to exist simultaneously it is also impossible for the God of classical theism to exist.
However, theists disagree, they argue that although it is logically improbable for there to be a scenario in which (1) through (4) exist it is not logically impossible. Therefore as it is not logically impossible there must still be some possibility for a classical God to exist alongside evil. Theists argue that it is possible for (1) through (4) to coexist if and only if God had a morally sufficient reason for allowing suffering to exist. Let us take the example of a parent giving a vaccine to a child, the parent is allowing the child to suffer pain in the present to prevent further pain in the future. The parent has a morally permissible reason for allowing evil to exist in this scenario. Theists argue that God to has an unknown reason for allowing evil to exist.
Atheists countered, stating that if God were indeed Omniscient and Omnipotent he would be able to think up a method of allowing his morally permissible reason for allowing evil to occur without there being any evil involved. For example if it were a method of teaching God would be able to think of a method to teach the lesson without causing suffering on the world below. Seeing as evil exists he evidently not put this in to practice. This means that either God is not all knowing (he could not think of a method of achieving such a thing) or God is not all powerful (he was not able to put his idea into action).
The free will defence argues that the good God has done through the creation of beings with significant free will outweighs the evil that they cause through the exercising of said liberty. It could be argued that someone who has significant free will and does something morally right is superior to someone who has no choice and is forced into making morally right decisions. God could influence every aspect of our lives and force us to make morally right decisions, but those decisions would be of lesser value given that we had no input on it. Therefore if God were to eliminate evil he would be forced to eliminate free will. By bestowing us with free will God would be remiss to remove it in favour of removing evil. Theists argue that the maintenance of free will is God’s morally permissible reason for allowing evil to exist.
To properly dissect the idea of free will we will need to investigate that which it presupposes. Libertarianism is “the view that a person is free with respect to a given action if and only if that person is both free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing that action; in other words, that person is not determined to perform or refrain from that action by any prior causal forces.†Plantinga points out that if there were a world in which everyone was forced to make the morally right decision no one would be worthy of praise. In as much as we wouldn’t praise a laptop for correctly linking the keys to images on a screen we shouldn’t praise those who are forced to follow instructions. It is what they are programmed to do and as a result they are given no other choice. However in a world where everyone is giving significant free will people should be praised if they are given the option between right and wrong and choose right and should be punished if they choose wrong.
This also falls prey to the idea of impossibility versus improbability. As it is highly improbable, not impossible, that a world can be created in which every creature is given morally significant free will and no evil is caused there is a small possibility that it could be done. And if one were to take (1) through (3) literally one could that it is morally irresponsible of God to have not created said world. Seeing as he would know of such a world, want to create such a world and be able to create such a world. It seems off that if it is possible for God to have given us morally significant free will and prevent evil and he has not done it one of premises (1) through (3) cannot be true. Unless of course the preservation of Free Will is not God’s morally permissible reason for allowing evil to exist. The question still remains however, what could this reason be?
In fact according to Christian Doctrine it was originally God’s will to give individuals morally significant free will and prevent evil and suffering simultaneously. The story of Adam and Eve tells the story of the Garden of Eden, a place in which all inhabitants were given morally significant free will and evil was prevented from occurring. If Adam and Eve had followed God’s plans then we would be living in a world in which morally significant free will and evil did not come hand in hand. Are we to assume that we are one of God’s failures then when it comes to the creation of a planet with morally significant free will and no evil?
Plantinga argues that if evil exists it is the fault of Humans not of God, he writes in his book:
“The essential point of the Free Will Defense is that the creation of a world containing moral good is a cooperative venture; it requires the uncoerced concurrence of significantly free creatures. But then the actualization of a world […] containing moral good is not up to God alone; it also depends upon what the significantly free creatures of [that world] would do.â€
We can see that Plantinga believes it is the creatures responsibility just as much as it is God’s responsibility to maintain a morally good world.
Plantinga also argues that God is all powerful within limits (which seems in itself a contradiction) however Plantinga disagrees. He argues that God is not able to contradict himself. As it is a contradiction for there to be creatures with morally significant free will and at the same time to causally determine the outcome God is incapable of creating a scenario in which that happens. This brings us age old question, can God create a rock that he cannot lift. Plantinga would argue that since it is contradictory for God to be able to create such a rock it would be impossible for him to create one. This is the limit to God’s power, he cannot create something which is logically inconsistent, like the creation of a round square. However it appears like the theists are attempting to take on the logical problem of evil by backing down on their definition of God. As it is highly improbable that (1) through (4) can all exist simultaneously it would appear that rather than find a scenario in which they can all exist they are weakening their definitions so as to allow Gods continued existence.
The obvious defence of Gods ability to create morally significant free will along with the removal of evil itself also comes from within religious doctrines. The idea of heaven serves as a counterpoint to Plantinga’s logical inconsistence defence. In heaven God is said to have created a scenario in which all members have morally significant free will and evil does not exist. Furthermore, if God is able to create such a place why did He bother with Earth in the first place, all He has done in the creation of the earth is the facilitation of evil. Through this decision He has allowed all kinds of evil to exist, which means he cannot be all good. Alternatively people who get into heaven may have their morally significant free will removed, which arguably suggests that (if we assume morally significant free will is responsible for personality) people who get into heaven are stripped of their identity, which begs the question, why provide people with morally significant free will in the first place if they have only have one outcome, regardless of their actions they will have their morally significant free will removed.
Furthermore, if God is all good and he cannot choose the option of evil, does God have morally significant free will? He seems to be restricted by his very definition. Therefore, linking back to my analogy of a computer which performs the function it is programmed to do, should we praise God? He simply followed the ‘program’ enforced on Him and had no other option as to how to proceed. In fact he actually failed in this task as he was unable to find a scenario in which there is no evil. Given our experiences of the world around us. Therefore is God actually perfect? If a computer were to fail to perform it’s function effectively would we praise it?