Evil is an action which causes suffering, which in turn is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. Moral evil, therefore, is evil caused by human free will. Examples include murder, rape and genocide. Also, moral evil can be classed as what we, as people, fail to do: things such as paying fair prices for goods and services or making attempts to end exploitation and poverty. Another key area of moral evil is failing to share life-saving technologies from richer countries, where the technology exists, to the poor countries where they are also needed. As moral evil is all derived from human choices, most people can understand it better than natural evil.
Natural evil is evil caused by nature. This includes natural disasters, like earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes. The suffering caused by natural disasters can be understood however when one looks at the global scale. This is because, in poorer countries like Indonesia, tsunamis cause mass damage and loss if life. On the contrary, in richer countries like the USA, there is technology to warn when a natural disaster is coming – as well as having reinforced infrastructure, able to stand up to the disasters. Therefore, suffering from natural disasters can be viewed as not natural evil, but moral evil as the richer countries do not wish to share the life-saving technology – and that is a human choice which causes suffering. The main issue comes from disease and natural death, uncaused by humans directly. Hindus and Buddhists are able to explain this issue away, as they believe in the principle of karma. This means that they believe that if one commits evil, they will suffer evil, therefore putting natural death and disease to the person has lived a life of bad karma. Muslims also do not find as much difficulty in this scenario as other religions, as they believe that life is a test, and so can understand people having to live through difficulty (illness) and surviving if they remain faithful. Moreover, in the case of natural death, a Muslim would say that the person has angered Alla (God) and so has been punished.
Christians still have an issue though as they believe their God to be omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent. This means that they believe God to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all loving. The ancient philosopher, Epicurus, goes into some more detail on this matter with the following verse:
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?
In this verse, Epicurus explains that, with evil and suffering in the world, God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent. The first two lines, therefore, state that if God is not able, He cannot be omnipotent, as He cannot prevent evil. Another possibility is that God doesn’t want to intervene, therefore He is malevolent as He doesn't want to prevent evil. Finally, if He is able to prevent evil and wants to (so he knows about it happening), evil should not be – however, as it is, He cannot be. Because of this, God may be neither able nor willing. If this is the case, however, there is no reason to call Him God.
An attempt to explain God’s omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence whilst suffering exists is called a theodicy, from the Greek, ”theos,” and, ”dikes” (God and justice respectively). The two theodicies which make the most sense to me are the Big Picture theodicy and the Irenaean theodicy.
The Big Picture theodicy explains that if one looks at a small part of a picture, it may seem meaningless and dark, but if one were to step back and view the whole picture, meaning and purpose can be found in all things – no matter how tragic or joyous they may seem. This is reinforced in the bible, in the Book of Job in the Old Testament. In this dramatic play, Job complains to God about the hardships and troubles he experiences, however God reminds Job that he cannot see the bigger picture, but from His perspective, God can and all will be well in the end.
The Irenaean theodicy explains that, due to his love for us, God did not provide us with a perfect world to live in. Instead of this, we are given a challenging world, forcing us to grow into whom we can become, confronting and dealing with difficulties. This provides us with satisfaction when we overcome our problems and grants us a sense of achievement when we grow through our experiences – meaning that evil and suffering are to be overcome, coped with and learned from: the most valuable lessons are learned from painful situations!
I prefer the Irenaean theodicy to the Big Picture theodicy as for me, the latter is not wholly satisfactory. This is because the Big Picture theodicy explains that's child dying is for the greater good, which to me sounds more like justification for Communism than justification for an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent God. If the child died because they would have turned into an evil, malevolent dictator, let them show signs of this and then die. I think this as, if God does not give us the choice to become evil, malevolent dictators before being smitten, we do not have free will – something an omni-benevolent God would give. If we commit evil and then turn away, however, we should also survive (evil dictator becoming friendly and democratic, as an example). In contrast, if we commit evil and do not turn away, then it is better to be smitten by the Almighty, as we could cause mass suffering. This is still not justifying the child’s death, but the villainous adult’s. However, it should not be necessary for God to intervene, as where many humans suffer personal loss and find a common enemy, upheaval will occur and the evildoer overthrown.
On the contrary, the Irenaean theodicy fits better with my idea of a deist God, as it allows Him to give us challenges and rewards, but can force His hand where necessary. This is shown in two of Jesus’ miracles – the Healing of the Widow’s Son at the Gate in Nain and the Feeding if the 5000. The Healing of the Widow’s Son at the Gate in Nain is an example of God relieving suffering, as the widow was suffering the pain or loss of a loved one, whilst the son was suffering the pain of death. When Jesus arrived, he raised the son, relieving his suffering and also the widow’s, as she no longer had to bear the pain of the death of a loved one.
The Feeding of the 5000 is another example of God relieving suffering as there were thousands of people who were following Jesus. As it was getting late, the people became hungry – therefore suffering. Jesus then asked for all food to be brought to him, but only five loaves and to fish were presented. He prayed to God, who blessed the food so that, when Jesus broke it, it was multiplied – enough so to fill twelve baskets after everyone was full, thereby relieving the suffering.
These are examples of an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent God relieving suffering, proving that – in dire scenarios – He will intervene. In most cases, however, He will not – presumably to keep things fair as otherwise, there may be one event where He does not intervene, and so, the affected persons feel a large injustice. Instead, I believe that He created us with the power to prevent suffering, as He knows that it is inevitable (omniscience), He has the power to give us the power to relieve it (omnipotence), and He loves us enough to let us find our own feet. This means that He also created suffering so that we have the power to overcome it, fitting with the Irenaean theodicy explaining that we were not provided with a perfect world to live in.
Because of all this, I think that religion responds fairly well to the problem of evil and suffering, as, where necessary, God can relieve it, but prefers not to. This is proven in the miracles of the Healing of the Widow’s Son at the Gate in Nain, and the feeding of the 5000 (both explained above). Moreover, the Irenaean theodicy and the Big Picture theodicy explain that evil should exist and it is our job to relieve the suffering it causes. This means that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent as He knows that we can grow through evil, He has the power to allow us to stop it, and the love to let us find our own path through life.