1
The Problem of Evil
A. Some Basic Terms and Contextual Material
A. Nomos is a concept of an orderly world operating according to understandable laws.\
B. Anomic events are those that seem random and without explanation and thus they
threaten our sense of meaning and purpose.
C. Evil is an anomic event because it involves great pain and suffering and threatens our
sense of meaning.
D. A theodicy is a proposed solution or attempt to make sense of evil.
1. Deals not with the scientific “why”- there are scientific explanations for
floods, earthquakes, illnesses and even for many crimes.
2. Deals with the “existential why.” This involves questions like: why did this
happen to me, to my friends, to my family, to my society?
3. Religions face a clear role in trying to assure people that, in spite of anomic
events, there still exists meaning.
4. Those religions that posit the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God
have a special “problem of evil” to solved- how can evil be possible if God is
all good and all powerful? This leads to argument denying the existence of
such a God.
5. Scottish philosopher, David Hume [1711-1776] states the problem as such: “Is
God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then God is impotent. Is God able,
but not willing? Then God is malevolent. Is God both able and willing?
Then, whence the evil?
B. The Problem of Evil – and possible solutions
1. The Theistic Problem- if evil, then not God
a) Those religions that posit the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God
have a special “problem of evil” to solved- how can evil be possible if God is all
good and all powerful? This leads to argument denying the existence of such a
God.
b) Scottish philosopher, David Hume [1711-1776] states the problem as such: “Is
God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then God is impotent. Is God able,
but not willing? Then God is malevolent. Is God both able and willing? Then,
whence the evil?
c) Deductive argument:
1. Two propositions: (i) God is omnipotent and (ii) God is
wholly good.
2. Additional propositions: (i) Good is always opposed to evil in
such a way that a good thing (person) always eliminates evil
as far as can; (ii) There are not limits to what an omnipotent
being can do.
3. This gives us the contradictory argument:
a. A good omnipotent being would eliminate evil
completely.
b. A good omnipotent being exists.
c. Evil exists.
2
d) Inductive argument: Inductive argument points to the degree of evil that
does exist and argues that this kind of evil makes it highly improbable that God
exists.
i.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.
ii. 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.
iii. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
e) Question arises: what might be a greater good that justifies God’s permitting intense suffering
to exist?
i. St. Augustine- “evil is either sin or the punishment for sin.” Punishment for sin
is the greater good- what about innocent people and babies? (Karmic philosophy
suggests that these people were not so innocent in previous lives- but one must
accept reincarnation.) - RECOMPENSE THEODICY- Karma
ii. Free will is the greater good. This view argues that a world in which human
beings have free will , even if it leads to sin and evil, is better than a world in
which there is no free choice.- Free will theodicy
Problems: (1) Does not explain natural evil ; (2) Could not God
create human being who could make genuine free choices , yet are
limited in what they can do?
iii. God permits evil for “soul making.” Certainly, experiences of pain and
suffering do build character- but how much pain and suffering is necessary? Hitler, the Holocaust, genocide, terrorism, starvation, war, etc. Soul-making
theodicy
B. Other approaches to the dilemma within theism.- Restricting God’s Power
1. Process theology and philosophy- “Reality is a marvelous dance of mutually
responsive energy, and no actual entity, including God, can wholly determine the
dance ahead of time.” Schubert Ogden- “God does not have all the power there is,
but only all the power that any one individual could conceivably have consistent with
there being other individuals who…must themselves also have some power, however
minimal.” God, as conceived in this viewpoint, cannot eliminate all degrees and
types of evil, let alone all evil. God can only minimize evil while creating as many
possibilities for good as possible.
2. Another view is that God is highly interactive with the world and persons, suffering
with all living creatures, while also continually to forge a whole that is rich and
honors the good and bad contributions of each.
C. Shankara- only Atman/Brahman exists and all else (including evil) does not exist or
only seems to exist. Denying existence of evil.
D. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, argues that God is Mind or Spirit
and illness, pain, suffering, and even death only seem real. “The Science of Mind
disposes of all evil.”- Denying the existence of evil.