The Problem of Evil

Pocket handbook of Christian Apologetics Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli

Consider the following propositions: 1. God exists 2. God is all good 3. God is all powerful 4. Evil exists If we accept and affirm the first three then it would seem we have to deny the fourth; - if God exists, wills only good, and is powerful enough to get all he wills, then there would be no evil.

- if God exists, wills only good, but evil exists, then God does not get what he wills. Thus he is not all powerful - if God exists, and he is all powerful and evil exists too, then God wills evil to exist. Thus he is not all good. - Finally if God means a being that is all good and all powerful and yet evil still exists, then such a God does not exist.

Five possible solutions

1. Atheism is the denial of proposition 1, that God exists. 2. Pantheism is the denial of proposition 2, that God is good and not evil

Pantheism is the view that the UniverseFive possible solutions (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" is the denial of 1. Atheism andthe Greek (theos) meaning "God".1, thatPantheism, proposition Within God the central ideas found in almost all exists. are the Cosmos as an allversions 2. Pantheism is the the encompassing unity and denial of sacredness of Nature. God is proposition 2, that In Pantheism, God is identical with good and not evil the universe, but in Panentheism God lies within and also beyond or outside of the universe.

3. Modern naturalism and ancient polytheism both deny proposition 3, that God is all powerful. Ancient polytheism limited Gods power by splitting God up into many little gods some of which were evil. Modern naturalism, such as process theology, does the same by reducing God to being of time, growth, imperfection, weakness and limitation.

4. Idealism here is the denial of real evil - seen in Advaita Hinduism, Christian science and much New Age thinking, all of which say evil is an illusion produced by unenlightened thinking.

5. Finally, traditional theism, including orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam, affirm all four propositions and deny any logical contradiction. This can be done only if there are some ambiguous terms.

5. Finally, traditional theism, including orthodox - (of language) open to Christianity, Judaism and more than one four Islam, affirm all interpretation; having a propositions and deny any doublecontradiction. This can logical meaning - unclear or if there are be done only inexact because a choice between some ambiguous terms.

Ambiguous |ambigyos|

alternatives has not been made

5. Finally, traditional theism, including orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam, affirm all four propositions and deny any logical contradiction. This can be done only if there are some ambiguous terms.

Customers 5. Finally, traditional theism, including orthodox who think our Christianity, Judaism and waiters are Islam, affirm all four propositions and deny any logical contradiction. This can rude should be done only if there are see the some ambiguous terms. manager

Defining evil
There are 2 common misunderstandings regarding evil; 1. It is often associated with a being 2. There is confusion between physical and moral evil

If evil is a being then it is an unsolvable problem - for God would have had to make it and is therefore not all good - or God did not make it and therefore he is not the all powerful creator of all things. We should note that things are not evil in themselves - a sword is not evil - it is the intent it is used for that is used to order the use - from there we decide on the action which it was used for.

Augustine defined evil as disordered will, disordered love - a wrong relationship, a non conformity between our will and Gods will. God did not make it we did - we see in Genesis 1 and 3 the stories of Gods good creation and humanities rebellion and fall.

Secondly, we need to distinguish between physical and moral evil sin and suffering, the evil we actively do and that which we passively suffer - the evil we choose and the evil we are subject to, that which we are responsible for and that which we are not. Two explanations are needed: The origin of sin is human free will. The immediate origin of suffering is nature - e.g. we stub our toe on something or drown in the sea.

Here God cannot be responsible for sin - but what of suffering, can that be traced to sin? Genesis 3 says that there is a direct link. It does not explain how - but it does declare thorns and thistles, pain in child bearing and the sweat of our brow are all the result of sin

Connecting suffering with sin: the Fall

Humans are generally believed to be a psychosomatic unity that is body and soul - your soul or psyche is your form and your body your matter. Kreeft says it is like a poem where the meaning is the form and the sounds and syllables are the matter.

So if our soul is separated from God by sin our body will suffer too - it will be alienated and experience pain and death as inevitable consequences of sin. Spiritual death and physical death go together as our bodies and soul go together. So we have to ask did the Fall literally take place in human history? What if Gen 3 is not real then it is a fable about sin and Adam and Eve are only symbolic.

2 consequences: 1. There was never a time of innocence when God made all things good - so we were made sinners and we can trace that back to God (who is therefore to blame). 2. If the Fall is only what we do then why has no one ever resisted - if there is a choice and everyone chooses the same do you really think there is real freedom?

Kreeft suggests 2 powerful arguments for believing the historicity of Genesis 3. 1. Nearly every, tribe, nation, and religion throughout history has a similar story. The idea of paradise having been lost - a time of no evil, suffering or death. Just because all think it doe not make it true - it is simply an indicator - and it then means we can put the need for proof n those who deny such ideas.

2. We need to look at the human condition, namely, A. All people desire perfect happiness B. No one is perfectly happy C. All desire complete certainty and perfect wisdom D. No one is completely certain or perfectly wise. No one has the two things we all want - as if we all remember Eden but cannot recapture it. We do not accept how we are but long for another time when things were different.

Kreeft suggests we imagine God as symbolised by a large magnet - 3 iron rings hang from it. Ring 1 represents the soul Ring 2 the body Ring 3 nature Whilst ring 1 (soul) remains in contact with God then all 3 remain attached - if ring 1 loses contact with God all fall. As our soul declares independence from God the whole structure falls apart:

God

Kreeft suggests we imagine God as symbolised by a with large - our soul loses contact magnet - 3 iron rings hang our body and also with nature from it. so all1suffers for our authority Ring represents the soul over nature is delegated by / Ring 2 the body from 3 nature we reject God Ring God - thus, Whilst ring 1 (soul) remainshe and we reject the authority in contact with God then all 3 delegated remain attachedwe can see sin As a conclusion - if ring 1 loses contact with God allman and suffering come from fall. As our soul declares not from God. independence from God the whole structure falls apart:

God

Defining Free Will

Kreeft does this by contrasting it with determinism. Determinism says all we do is accounted for by heredity and environment. Free will then adds a third element to this, an element not determined by heredity. H&E condition our acts but do not determine them - just as paints and a frame do not determine the picture to be painted - they are necessary but not sufficient cause of freely chosen acts.

Kreeft suggests looking at how we use words - praise, blame, command, moralise etc. to each other - would you do those to a robot? Of course not they are not morally responsible. So, if you remove free will from life then all moral meaning disappears from language and life.

One might ask why did God give us free will? Kreeft suggests this is not the right question to ask - after all you give a pony to a child or a polish to a table - but you do not give three sides to a triangle, or free will to a person. Free will is part of the essence of the person - without it they would not be a person in fact we would consider them a machine.

Defining Omnipotence
Part of the problem of evil is the problem of a God who is all powerful as well as all good. Why didnt God create a world without sin? Gen 1,2 says he did - the problem of sin was not with God, but with man. And if you then suggest God should have created man without the freedom to sin, then you have to consider this removing love from the world - after all, love is a choice: Love proceeds from free will

But the question is still asked could God have created a world with free will and without sin the answer is He did! the presence of sin is not cased by God but by the choice of men. Our freedom means there was always going to be the possibility of sin - even with an omnipotent God. It would appear to be a contradiction to want a world with free choice (of good or evil) and at the same time no possibility of choosing evil.

Some Christian thinkers suggest God is not limited by anything even the laws of logic - and so they disagree with this position. Kreeft argues that it is not part of Gods nature to perform anything that has a meaningless contradiction. God is consistent within himself, this is the very nature of God. The consequence of this thinking is that even an omnipotent God cannot forcibly prevent sin without removing our free will.

Some Christian thinkers suggest This cannot does not God is not limited by anything mean laws Gods power even the thatof logic - and so they disagree with this position. has met something Kreeft argues that it is not part greater than perform it outside of Gods nature to of Himself - a meaningless anything that has but, as CS contradiction. God is consistent Lewis said, nonsense within himself, this is the very does God. nature of not cease to be The consequence of this thinking nonsense when we add is that even an omnipotent God the forcibly prevent sin words God can cannot without removing our free will. before it.

Defining Goodness
Goodness is more than kindness - for example dentists, surgeons, even football coaches do good work but it might hurt a bit! God would not be good if good just meant being kind. We might be kind to another persons children whilst having higher standards for our own. We kill animals to prevent pain whilst having higher hopes for humans, hence no euthanasia.

God allows suffering and deprives us of some pleasures in order that we might receive the higher pleasure of greater good and of spiritual education. (Many have acknowledged that wisdom can come through suffering). Job did not suffer because of his lack of godliness but because God wanted Job to see Him more - supreme happiness - Job 42:5 - in this Job is a paradigm for all of us. All God does is good - so he allows evil to work in us for this - this is like me not doing Dans homework for him!

Defining Happiness
The shallow modern meaning of happiness is a subjective feeling - you feel happy. It is a temporary phenomenon, it comes and goes. It happens [mainly] by chance and is sourced externally. E.g. Winning at something, bodily excitement, power etc. - not poverty, chastity, obedience.

There is an older deeper meaning to happiness - found in the Greek word eudaimonia - this is an objective state, not subjective feeling. Jesus said you are blessed (objectively happy) even when you mourn (are subjectively unhappy) - Matt 5:4. True happiness is about a lifetime not a moment - it then is under our control, a choice, created by wisdom and virtue (which are good habits not passively received) - and happiness is internal not external, Kreeft suggests it is about a good soul not a good bank account.

Gods providence arranges our life for true happiness at the end - but this might not include shallow, subjective happiness. Some suggests for true happiness to be understood we have to suffer. It is something in the spirit of man not the body or feelings. Such happiness acts as an anchor even when times are stormy. Physical and emotional storms strengthen and harden our anchor.

Gods providence arranges our life for true happiness at the end - but this might not Teresa of Avila said include shallow, subjective that the most miserable happiness. Some suggests for true happiness toseen from earthly life, be understood we have to suffer. the perspective of of It is something in the spirit heaven, body or feelings. man not thelooks like one Such happiness in an an night acts as anchor even when times are inconvenient hotel. stormy. Physical and emotional storms strengthen and harden our anchor.

Providence and Freedom

Having defined these five terms we can better understand the relationship of Gods providence and our freedom. Consider this line of reasoning: - God knows all things and his knowledge is eternal - therefore he knows my choice before I make it, so how can I choose anything freely? - freedom must give me the choice of evil or good, but here I do not seem to get any genuine choice

- God appears to have made my choices, and I get none - so if God exists human freedom is impossible - Therefore, God must be the author of sin How can we respond to such reasoning? 1. Gods knowledge being eternal does not mean he determines what you will do. His knowledge is simply not constrained by time (as we are) - God does not change, whilst time does, it moves on - God transcends time.

God sees in a single and eternal act of vision all our free choices as they really exist, embedded in their times, places and circumstances 2. If God created us to be free then our freedom is a gift - but within this Gods creating and conserving power must be present in all our acts. No freedom we might have can eliminate our need for God - he is the source of all things and he gives being to our freedom.

God sees in a single and eternal act of vision all our free choices Creatures can act on their as they really exist, embedded in own times, placesto other their in respect and circumstances creatures; but never with 2. If God created us to be free then respect to the creator. our freedom is a gift - but within Without creating and would be God there conserving this Gods no freedom for us to all our power must be present in have. acts. No freedom we might have And there would be no us can eliminate our need for God - he tothe source of all things and he have it. is gives being to our freedom.

Kreeft leaves providence and freedom with this comment: if God really is intimately involved in giving being to our free choices...think what a terrible thing sin must be. God has committed himself to create and sustain those of us who use the gift of freedom to hurt others and to hate God himself.The power of those who drove the nails into the hands and feet of his beloved Son came ultimately from him. If freedom has a terrible price, surely God pays more than his share

Practical Application
It is important to see evil not just as an argument against God but as a broken relationship, a spiritual divorce. In effect what is required is a practical, not theoretical, answer to the problem of evil. The practical problem involves the guilt and sin produced in us - Christ came to solve this problem. Guilt can only be removed by God through faith in the atoning wok of Jesus Christ