Problem of Evil

P h i l o s o p h y



4 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3
Courtney Goodrich


Mike and Nancy had been married for 25 years and God had blessed them with seven
children. Mike was the breadwinner of the family while Nancy was a stay at home mom and
homeschooled their children. The eldest three children were already married or at college,
leaving four children still at home under the age of 18. One evening Mike went out for a jog by
himself. An hour later he was found at the edge of the yard dead. The autopsy showed that
Mike had a heart disease which clogged the arteries and he had died of heart failure before he
was able to reach the house. Nancy was suddenly left husbandless, jobless, and responsible for
four children under the age of eighteen. Nine years after Nancy lost her husband she was
diagnosed with cancer. By that time she was left with the three young children at home. During
this time Nancys landlord decided he was ready to sell the house so she was forced to find
someplace else to stay. All of this occurred with no supporting husband to lean on, children to
care for, and while going through treatment for cancer at the same time. This is only one out of
many such incidents that happen every day.
Through the years an objection has arisen against the possibility of there being a pure,
loving God because of the amount of evil that exists in this world. Everyone is touched by evil in
some way from natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis to human evil
such as murder, rape, theft, and the list could go on and on. One important fact to settle right
now is that evil is not a tangible thing, but a choice that is made. I believe that subconsciously
evil almost becomes a thing to many of us. We need to remember that it is simply a choice
made in many instances besides those natural disasters over which humans have no control.
There are basically two types of objections raised concerning the co-existence of evil
and a good, loving God in this world. There is the intellectual objection to evil, which is that God
and evil rationally cannot co-exist, and there is the emotional objection to evil, where humans do
not want to accept a God that allows such evil things to happen. According to William Lane
Craig the latter option is probably the most common objection. People simply do not like the
idea of a good God with all power who still allows many awful things to happen.
First of all we will talk about the intellectual objection to evil. There are two components
to this intellectual objection of evil. The first component is the logical objection. The basis of the
logical objection is that it is rationally impossible for a good God and evil to co-exist. However,
no philosopher has ever come up with a premise of why this is so. The atheist will claim that
God has no morally sufficient reason to allow evil, but again how can he prove this? We actually
cannot rule out the possibility that there may be a perfectly logical reason for God and evil to co-
exist. Therefore, there can be no absolute philosophical objection to God and evil co-existing.
The second component of the intellectual objection to evil is what is called the
probabilistic view. This view says that there is so much evil in this world as to make it highly
improbable that God has morally sufficient reasons to permit this evil to occur. One answer to
this is that we are finite beings with a limited understanding compared to an infinite God of
unlimited understanding and knowledge. Who are we to say that there is or is not a moral and
logical reason for God and evil to co-exist? The Christian viewpoint has several doctrines that
make it probable that their God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to co-exist with Him.
The first of these doctrines is the Christian viewpoint that the main purpose of life is not
happiness, but rather knowledge of God and a relationship with God. Many people today
believe that happiness is the goal of life and the evil in this world really hinders their
achievement of the goal. The viewpoint of happiness as the goal of life actually contributes to
the problem of evil.
The second doctrine held by Christians that makes the co-existence of God and evil
probable is the fact that mankind is rebelling against their Creator. Whenever mankind chooses
to rebel against God and his laws, evil is the result. At this point some may suggest that God
could have prevented evil choices, but when God created humankind he did not wish to create
robots, who had no choice of whether or not to love Him. No human appreciates a friendship
where the other person is forced to like or love them. A so-called friendship of this kind would
hold no meaning if it was only by force. Thus, God created mankind with free will so that man
could choose to love and obey God of their own volition. When mankind choses to not love God
or go against Gods will, evil happens.
The third Christian doctrine is that this current life is not all they are living for. They
believe in a wonderful after life in Heaven if they have lived in a right relationship with God. This
fact makes the days brighter, even when sad and evil things may happen to a Christian.
The fourth and last doctrine to mention is the doctrine that the knowledge of God is an
incomparable good and the fulfillment of human life. Those that know God and suffer awful
things are still happy and fulfilled because they know God. To them knowing God outweighs all
the bad.
Another response to the probabilistic viewpoint is to question the background which has
been used to establish the probability of God and evil not co-existing. Many who bring up the
problem of evil are stating the probability that God does not co-exist with evil because they are
looking only at the background of all the evil in the world. There are several things that are
excluded or ignored by those who bring up the problem of evil. For one, they do not see that fact
that God has the best explanation for Creation. The atheists do not do a very good job
explaining how or why this world was created. The atheist at this point has been totally unable
to come up with any valid proof that an oscillating worldview is probable or even possible.
Scientists also have been unable to scientifically bring about a Big Bang upon a smaller scale
except for in a very controlled environment which would not have been the situation when the
supposed Big Bang happened. Secondly, God is the best explanation for the existence of
objective moral values. From first-hand experience I have learned that even those who say
moral values are relevant turn around and say that some moral values are absolutely wrong
such as murder and rape. Since there seems to be a general consensus that there are absolute
moral laws, it follows that there must be an absolute moral law giver, and the only one who has
the authority to make absolute laws is God. What is very interesting is that instead of the
problem of evil being evidence against God, it turns out to support the existence of God after all
the background information has been looked at.
The second objection to the problem of evil is the emotional objection. This is just as it
sounds and comes from the negative emotions people have concerning a supposedly good God
who allows such evil in the world. They simply do not like to think of a supposedly all-powerful
God, who as they may put it, does not stop evil. Once again this goes back to what was
mentioned earlier, that God created man with a free will and evil is the result of mankind
rejecting Gods laws.
What they do not realize is that God is a Heavenly Father who hurts alongside humanity. He
loved mankind so much that He sent His Son to die for them and take the penalty of humanitys
wrongdoing. Jesus willingly did this and went through untold agony upon the cross. No one has
ever suffered more from evil than Jesus! He did it all so that mankind could be delivered from
this wicked world and live in unspeakable glory when they die. For those that do not accept this
viewpoint nothing is left to them, but imprisonment in a world full of much evil, with no hope of a
brighter future!
We will here mention one other response to refute the problem of evil argument. This
response to evil was given by Ravvi Zacharias at a college. His response was in answer to a
scenario given of a girl who had been raped. Ravvi said that many people when asking about
the problem of evil are trying to disprove that there is a God. The difficulty with the problem of
evil question is that they are assuming there is evil, which means they also assume there is
good. There cannot be good and evil unless there is some sort of moral code, and for there to
be a moral code there must be a Moral Law Giver. The fact that there must be a Moral Law
Giver brings us back to the fact that there must be a God. Thus we find that the problem of evil
is actually self-refuting!















References:
These are the works that I drew information from.
Ravvi Zacharias- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9b0PJDDof4
William Lane Craig- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPqSrnR6VtI