It is an undeniable fact that evil exists in the world in which we live. Critics of theism have repeatedly pointed to this fact as evidence that God, as traditionally understood, does not exist. In fact, many Christians have trouble understanding and accepting the evil that is so obviously present among us.
This is not a problem to be taken lightly or scoffed at, great Christian thinkers down through the ages have wrestled with the problem of evil and they have come up with many diverse solutions. In turn, secular thinkers have also been considering the problem and attacked the solutions which are offered by Christian thought. There is no easy answer and those who simply shrug and go on do not understand the importance of the issue. “The problem of evil is complex and needs to be carefully unraveled before we give in to the temptation to offer simplistic answers.”[i]
The problem of evil is the only proof for atheism.[ii] There are many arguments which proponents of atheism use to counteract theism’s proofs for God, but only the problem of evil has any hope of proving that there is not a God. Evil is probably the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of atheism. It has the ability to attack the foundation of Christianity. Ronald Nash said, “every philosopher I know believes that the most serious challenge to theism was, is, and will continue to be the problem of evil.”[iii]
Another reason that the problem is of the utmost importance is its universality.[iv] Everyone in every religion and of every background has wondered at the existence of evil. Why does so much bad happen to me? Why is my little girl sick? Why did my wife die? Why is there sickness, disease, earthquakes, famine, poverty, murder, hate, and prejudice in the world? Why is it that evil has been able to run rampant down through the ages? “Where was God when Christians were slaughtering the Muslims and Jews - women and children included - during the ‘holy crusades’”[v] Where was He when the Church itself was corrupt and propagating evil “in His name?”[vi]
The importance of the problem of evil goes beyond the intellectual or philosophical. It is an intensely practical problem.[vii] It hits us where we live, we don’t question the goodness or existence of God only in our minds—we feel the doubt with our hearts. We feel the doubt as we stand over the casket of the young missionary who was taken before he ever got to the mission field. We feel the doubt as we stand on the playground and watch as the handicapped child is teased until he is in tears. The problem of evil comes from both the emotional and intellectual level.[viii] “Evil commonly strikes us not as a problem, but as an outrage.”[ix]
The problem is by no means a new one. “The question is as current as today’s news and as old as mankind”[x] Great literary works as early as Job and Gilgamesh make “mans consciousness of and struggle against evil an explicit theme.”[xi] J.C. Furnas wrote an article in which he compared God to a boy who places a twig in an ants path just to see if the ant goes over or around.[xii] In the same article Furnas goes on to discuss the Biblical account of Job. He says that, “For Satan clearly, for God almost as clearly, the episode has an entertaining side.”[xiii] This line of thought is developed even further when he suggests that the Adam and Eve story is nothing more than a laboratory experiment. God creates good beings and then gives them an evil stimuli just to see what happens. Sort of like placing a mouse in a cage with poison cheese and waiting to see if it will eat.[xiv] To Furnas the God of Christianity is no different than the gods of Homer.
The gods use Greeks and Trojans as tokens in a monopoly game. They manipulate mortals to match their intestine rivalries and are also patronizingly interested in the smaller, interlocking games that men and women play down below - gods for fun, mortals for keeps. [xv]
So to Furnas God, if He exist at all, didn’t make man in His own image to glorify and worship Him. He made man as a pet which is fun to watch, its fun for God to pull the strings in a huge Soap Opera, and if people get hurt in the process that just makes it all the more interesting.
Mackie says that it is a logical problem, he builds a case which suggest that the beliefs of theism contradict.[xvi] “[the problem of evil] seems to show not merely that traditional theism lacks rational support, but rather that it is positively irrational, in that some of its central doctrines are, as a set, inconsistent with one another.”[xvii] Theism holds to all four of the following propositions:
(1) God exists.
(2) God is wholly good.
(3) God is omnipotent.
(4) Evil exists.
However, if any three of these are held to be true then the fourth must obviously be false.[xviii]
Mackie puts it very well when he says, “a wholly good omnipotent being would eliminate evil completely; if there really are evils, then there can not be any such being.”[xix] Mackie’s argument is a powerful one, if theism says that evil exist because God can not eliminate it then theism has denied God’s omnipotence. If theism says that evil exist because God does not want to eliminate it then theism has apparently destroyed God’s goodness. Byron Palmer puts it very succinctly when he says, “Either God wills to remove the suffering but is not able to, or God does not will to remove it.”[xx]
Atheism simply rejects proposition one and states that God does not exist, therefore evil is not a problem. Pantheism rejects proposition two or the idea that God is wholly good. The Worldview of Polytheism allows many gods which are partly evil, therefore, the existence of evil is no mystery. Naturalism refuses proposition three—that God is all-powerful. “Modern naturalism, such as ‘process theology,’ . . . [reduces] God to a being of time and growth and imperfection and weakness.”[xxi] Some eastern religions, Christian Science and New Age all try to deny the truth of proposition four. To them evil is not real, it is simply an illusion of the human mind. Only a theistic Worldview attempt to affirm all four of the propositions.[xxii]
Terms Defined
A. Evil
Evil is not a tangible entity, it is not something that can be seen, touched, smelt, heard, or tasted. Evil is not a physical substance. God is the Creator of everything and He declared that creation to be good (Genesis 1). If there was something in existence which was evil by virtue of its existence the problem of evil would not have a solution.[xxiii] God could not have created anything which is ontologically evil.
A gun is not evil in and of itself. A gun is nothing more than metal and other raw material which has been crafted in a certain fashion. A gun can be used for evil, but is not in its self evil. Just as a gun can be used for evil purposes such as murder, it can also be used for good purposes such as hunting to provide food or defending the country. On the other hand, items we would normally think of as good can be used for evil. The medicines produced by the medical world have saved countless lives, but those same products have killed countless others through adduction. The point is that evil is not a thing, it is “in the will, the choice, the intent, the movement of the soul.”[xxiv]
There is usually a distinction made between moral and natural evil. “Moral evil is that evil human beings originate: cruel, unjust, vicious, and perverse thoughts and deeds. Natural evil is the evil that originates independently of human actions: in disease bacilli, earthquakes, storms, droughts, tornadoes, ect.”[xxv] Moral evil is generally thought of as the more serious problem. [xxvi]
Evil is the departure from and perversion of good. “The essence of evil is not to heed, not to trust, not to obey, the proclaimed and heard will of God . . . . True goodness consists in being in the center of the will of God. True evil consists in separation from the will of God and in refusal to return.”[xxvii] This goes all the back to the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. By eating the fruit of this tree man was disobeying the will and Word of God, thus, it was evil. The character of God is the very definition of good, therefore, evil is anything not in line with the character and nature of God.
B. Omnipotence
It is commonly thought that the omnipotence of God means that God can do anything. This is not completely true. God is not able to do that which is logically impossible for Him to do, He can not do that which is against His very nature. Light can not produce darkness, truth can not produce lies. The law of non-contradiction applies to God.
Omnipotence does not preclude the possibility that there are some things that God can not do. It does preclude the possibility that He is ever limited by lack of power. The very nature of His being precludes the possibility that He could do some things.[xxviii]
Some would say that this definition of omnipotence is limiting God. In reality it does the exact opposite. It is one thing to say that God is so holy the He will not sin, but it is much greater to say that God is so holy He can not sin. It is one thing to say He chooses holiness, another to say He is holiness. God can not do that which is against His nature, He can not accomplish the logically impossible.
C. Goodness
The term good is a general term which sums up many different attributes of God. “It embraces all the qualities of an ideal person.”[xxix] Goodness is more than holiness or love, and should not be confused with kindness. The Handbook of Christian Apologetics defines kindness as, “the will to free a loved one from pain.”[xxx] Goodness takes a much wider and longer look. We are kind to horses, when they are hurt we shoot them to end the pain. Hopefully when we deal with humans we go beyond mere kindness and act out of goodness.
D. Free Will
Some have thought that everything we do is determined by our environment and heredity, this way of thinking can be called determinism. Environment and heredity most definitely have some influence over our actions, but they are not the sole ingredients.[xxxi] Man has been given the right and ability to control his own actions. No outside force makes anyone’s decisions for them. Part of what it means to be human is having a free will.
A discussion on evil can not progress very far before its origin must be discussed. Some try to avoid the issue all together by denying the reality of evil. Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy in Science and Health with Key to Scriptures says, “Evil has no reality. It is neither person, place nor thing, but is simply a belief, an illusion without real basis. If sin, sickness and death were understood as nothingness, they would soon disappear.”[xxxii] However, even if all the suffering in the world is illusionary the illusion remains very real. Most, however, admit the reality of evil and attempt to explain its origins.
Some may say that evil originated within the heart of man. Scripture clearly teaches otherwise. All of God’s creation was declared good when He created it, especially man who was created in the very image of God (Gen. 1:27). Being created in the image of God, man was morally clean and good. Evil now has a powerful hold on mankind, but it was not always that way. “Biblical authority therefore affirms that evil does not belong to the true nature of man.”[xxxiii]
In chapter three of the Bible’s first book evil begins its entrance. The serpent comes to Eve and attacks her, not physically, but intellectually and spiritually. It causes Eve to question the one prohibition which God has set before them. The serpent challenges the authority and motives of God. This first challenge of God comes from the Serpent, not man.[xxxiv] Evil was introduced to man from outside of man.
When man, as the head of all God’s creation, accepted evil all of creation was infected. Genesis 3:16-19 clearly shows us the awful curse brought to the earth by sin. Now creation is so eaten up with evil we may be tempted to think creation is the source of evil, but clearly evil came from an outside source. Evil was introduced to this world by Satan. The origins of satanic evil are outside the confines of this paper; the important point to note is that man was not created evil.
One of the most common explanations given for the problem of evil is that it brings about a greater good. A child who touches a hot furnace and is burned will learn not to touch it again. Paul’s thorn in the flesh helped to make him a greater leader, and Job’s suffering brought spiritual growth.[xxxv] Genesis 50:20 puts it well when it says, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.” Evil is a necessary element of greater good. This argument seems to answer the problem in short order, but in fact it does not.
If God is to remain all powerful this argument will not work. An all-powerful God would be capable of bringing about any good He chooses without the use of evil. Mackie says it this way:
If omnipotence means anything at all, it means power over causal laws. If their is an omnipotent creator, then if their are any causal laws he must have made them, and if he is still omnipotent he must be able to override them. If there is a god, then, he does not need to use means to attain his ends.[xxxvi]
Mackie’s argument is a good one, and it must be conceded that he is correct. God can accomplish any good He chooses without the use of an evil means. It is undeniable that Scripture teaches us that God does use evil in order to bring about good, but it is incorrect to say he must use evil to bring about good. So we are back where we started. God chooses to let evil exist, how can He remain all-powerful and all-good yet still allow this evil to be?
There have been various attempts to solve the problem of evil, more than could be properly discussed within the confines of this paper. However, only one answer has any real hope of holding up under serious critique, and that is the argument of free will.
A. Why Free Will?
Having a free will is part of what is means to be human. “Being made in the image of God, he learns within himself a capacity of choice – a freedom of action which is going to make him vulnerable to temptation to evil.”[xxxvii] Being created in the image of God requires that we have a free will. “We praise, blame, command, counsel, exhort and moralize to each other”[xxxviii] These terms have no meaning outside of a belief in the human free will. If it all comes down to A + B = C then we are nothing more than a complex machine, and machines can mot be held to a moral standard. If we have no control over our actions, then we can not be held responsible for them, either through reward or punishment.
B. Evil IS NECESSARY For free will
In order for us to be given the ability to choose good we must also have the ability to choose evil. If we are to be able to freely worship and serve God we must be able to not worship and serve God. Why doesn’t God, Who knows even the future, just stop a person before evil is committed? Why are men like Hitler allowed to accomplish so much evil? Why not kill Hitler before to much damage can be done? The answer is found in free will, if God had destroyed Hitler or never allowed his birth that also would have destroyed Hitler’s free will. “To assume that God is responsible for our evil - even that evil committed ‘in His name’ - is, I suspect, to assume that humans are robots who simply act out a divine preplanned program.”[xxxix]
If a person has two foods set before them, food A and food B, and is told he must choose one, but is also told if he chooses B he will be immediately killed before he even eats it does he have any real choice? The greater amount of good which a person is capable of, the greater amount of evil he is also capable of. “God allows spiritual evil . . . to preserve human free will, that is, human nature.”[xl] John hick articulates the argument as follows:
If man is to be a being capable of entering into a personal relationship with his Maker, and not a mere puppet, he must be endowed with the uncontrollable gift of freedom. For freedom, including moral freedom, is an essential element in what we know as personal as distinct from non-personal life. In order to be a person man must be free to chose right or wrong. He must be a morally responsible agent with a real power of moral choice.[xli]
Objections to the Free Will Defense
Critics of the free will defense will usually argue that God could have created a being
which would always freely choose to do right.
Since there seems to be no reason why an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good god would not have preferred this alternative, the theist who maintains that their is such a god, and yet that he did not opt for this—since by his own account humans make bad free choices—seems to be committed to an inconsistent set of assertions. [xlii]
It would be logically possible according to this argument for God to have created a race which where made up in such a way that they would always overcome temptation or have such strong leanings toward good that evil would never be chosen.
There are a couple of ways in which to respond to this argument. Ninian Smart offers a very good point on this topic. He says that, “the concept good as applied to humans connects with other concepts such as temptation, courage, generosity, ect.”[xliii] Can the term good correctly be applied to beings such as Mackie suggest? If a person can not feel fear can he be called courageous? Is a man generous if there is never a chance of his not being generous?
Furthermore, the purpose of God must be considered. God wished for His creation to worship and serve Him. If He had created man in such a way that they would always respond in a certain manner can it be said they are truly worshipping Him? Holding a gun to man’s head can get him to do a great many things. A threat of death can get a man to worship a great many things, but if it is forced worship it is not really worship at all---worship and service must be a free choice. If God had created man to always choose right, even if it is still called a free choice, then it is much like a doctor who has hypnotized his patient. When the patient wakes up he will do what the doctor has told him to, and to the patient it may seem as though he is doing them freely. However, in reality it was the doctor who determined the actions of the patient. If God created man to always freely choose right it would be much like the hypnotist and his patient. It would seem to man that he was acting freely, but actually God would know they were not.[xliv]
God can without contradiction be conceived to have so constituted men that they could be guaranteed always to act freely in relation to one another. But He can not without contradiction be conceived to have so constituted men that they could be guaranteed freely to respond to Himself in authentic faith and love and worship. The contradiction involved here would be a contradiction between the idea of A loving and devoting him/herself to B, and B valuing this love as a genuine and free response to himself whilst knowing that he has so constructed or manipulated A’s mind as to produce it.[xlv]
Theism readily admits that evil exists in the world, however, theism also contends that this evil does not contradict with the theistic view of God. God is still omnipotent, and still wholly good. He could in fact abolish all evil from the world, but if He did the consequences would be far worse than the present evil. Man would be little more than a robot, enslaved by its own programming.
[i] W. Gary Phillips and William E. Brown, Making Sense of Your World from a Biblical Viewpoint (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 137.
[ii] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 122.
[iii] Ronald Nash, Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Raids: Academie Books, 1988), 177.
[iv] Kreeft, 122.
[v] Gregory Boyd and Edward Boyd, Letters From a Skeptic (USA: Victor Books, 1994), 18.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Kreeft, 122.
[viii] Ibid., 125-126.
[ix] Austin Farrer, Love Almighty and Ills Unlimited (New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1961), 11.
[x] W. Sibley Towner, How God Deals With Evil (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 9.
[xi] Gordon D. Kaufman, God the Problem (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972), 172.
[xii] J. C. Furnas, “The Ant and the Twig: Or the Dark Side of God,” American Scholar, Win 1983-84, 64.
[xiii] Ibid.
[xiv] Ibid., 65.
[xv] Ibid., 67.
[xvi] J.L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 150.
[xvii]Mackie, 150.
[xviii] Gordon D. Kaufman, God the Problem (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972), 128-129.
[xix] Ibid.
[xx]Hubert P. Black, “The Problem of Evil,” Christianity Today, 23 April 1971, 9.
[xxi] Gordon D. Kaufman, God the Problem (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972), 129.
[xxii] Ibid.
[xxiii] Kreeft, 132.
[xxiv] Ibid., 132.
[xxv] John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1978), 12.
[xxvi] H.J.McCloskey, “God and Evil,” In Critiques of God, ed. Peter Angeles (N.Y.: Prometheus, 1976), 207.
[xxvii] William Fitch, God and Evil (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), 41.
[xxviii] Leroy Forlines, Systematics (Randell House Publications, 1975), 44.
[xxix] Forlines, 49.
[xxx] Kreeft, 139.
[xxxi] Ibid., 137.
[xxxii] Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to Scriptures; Quoted in William Fitch, God and Evil (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), 31.
[xxxiii] Fitch, 39.
[xxxiv] Ibid., 40.
[xxxv] Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences (Illinois: Victor Books, 1990), 66-67.
[xxxvi] Mackie, 153.
[xxxvii] Fitch, 38.
[xxxviii] Mackie, 153.
[xxxix] Boyd, 20.
[xl] Kreeft, 142.
[xli] Hick, 266.
[xlii] Mackie, 164.
[xliii] Ninian Smart, Omnipotence, Evil and Superman; Quoted in John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1978), 270.
[xliv] Hick, 274.
[xlv] Ibid., 275.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment