March 2008
The Problem of Evil or Suffering
The existence and persistence of evil has been a challenge for humankind to understand since the first couple encountered the snake in the Garden of Eden. As long as people have suffered and struggled with pain and death the reality of evil has been sometimes overwhelming. Sometimes we are merely at a loss, i.e. we are left without anything to say.
A. The problem of evil versus the problem of suffering
There are two different questions in the title to this lecture. The problem of evil is an age old philosophical problem which has a complex history. Several basic options to explain the presence and persistence of evil have been put forward philosophically and we shall look at several of them. The problem of suffering, however, is an intensely personal question: why do I or my loved ones suffer? The problem of pain and suffering is a pastoral issue. It can be dealt with to some degree through philosophical discourse, but there is also a Biblical approach to this issue.
B. Biblical facts
1. God is good and loving.
We will begin with Biblical facts or assertions. First of all the Bible tells us that there is only one God, that God is good and that God is love and loving.
2. Creation was/is good, though it is now suffering corruption due to sin.
a. Creation was/is good.
The creation account tells us that when God created the heavens and the earth after each day of His creative activity He pronounced it “Good, very good.” From this assertion we must begin with the assumption that as originally given the creation was satisfying to God and “good.” What exactly “good” means may not fit our expectations. We will discuss this further on as we discuss John Hick’s Irenaean theodicy. However, suffice it to say that “good” may not mean “pleasant” or “comfortable.” If “good” means designed to accomplish God’s purpose for His creation then “good” may not mean “comfortable” for any given creature.
b. Creation is suffering corruption due to sin.
Adam and Eve’s sin resulted in the earth being cursed. Paul says that all creation groans awaiting the revelation of the sons of God. One day when Christ returns to judge heaven and earth the earth will be renewed and restored to its original pristine form.
3. God is all-powerful
The Bible also says that God is all-powerful. He is able to do anything He pleases within the limits of His own being, i.e. whatever is good, rational, true, and (ultimately) beautiful. (This is Aquinas’ view of God’s essential being; not Anselm’s realism or Ockham’s nominalism.) We are assured that God did His best when He created the world. Or at least we are assured by the Biblical text that God was satisfied with what He did. It met His criteria.
4. Evil is real.
a. Evil is personal.
i. The devil
The Bible also affirms the existence of real and personal evil. Already in the Garden of Eden that old serpent, the devil, appears and spoils the innocence of the first parents. He causes them to doubt God’s command and good intentions. He tempts them with an offer of the “knowledge of good and evil.” He makes them think God is withholding something from them. Ultimately, he tempts them with the lure that “you can be as gods.”
Satan’s origin is not explained in the Bible, though he appears in several places and is clearly identified as the leader of a group of evil beings or demons who work against God’s designs for humankind and the earth. Satan’s origin and fall are not clearly taught anywhere in the Bible (unless you hold that Isaiah 14 & Ezekiel 28 apply to Satan, but that seems doubtful for exegetical reasons). However, it is clear that he is “the prince of the power of the air” and has somehow usurped God’s authority and reigns here on earth.
ii. Adam & Eve sinned, the Fall
The Bible also clearly teaches that there was a first couple, Adam and Eve, and that their disobedience to God resulted in not only themselves being cursed with death and disease, but with the subjection of the whole created order to corruption. Whether we understand Adam as standing as the federal head of humankind (Erickson’s racial sin) or whether we understand some other sort of transmission of this original sin upon all humankind the Bible is clear that all people now struggle with a fallen or sinful human nature which is from birth in rebellion against God.
[Incidentally, “in sin my mother conceived me” Ps. 51 does not refer to sex as sinful despite Augustine’s interpretation. The point of the verse is to make clear that all people are born with a sinful, fallen human nature.]
Summary of Biblical facts
In light of these Biblical facts we can draw some conclusions this far:
First there is only one God and He is good. There is no dualism in which from all eternity a good and evil force wage war with each other. There is not even a more moderate version of this idea in which a “male” and “female” force wrestle with each other and thereby create. God is ultimately responsible in the Biblical mind for the world even as it is now.
Secondly, evil and suffering were not God’s original intent. That may seem like no surprising idea to you, but for many philosophers and many adherents of other religions it is absolutely amazing. Many people, perhaps most people who have ever lived, have viewed evil as recalcitrant, irradicable. Most of humankind has viewed evil as a powerful force (whether demonic or not) which had to be accepted and usually appeased through some ritual observances and/or sacrifices.
Thirdly the Bible makes clear that there is real evil and even radical evil.
a. Evil is real. That is, evil is a powerful force that does real damage. There are evil beings and they do have some real (if limited) power.
Again perhaps this does not seem amazing to you, but for some thinkers through the ages the enigma of evil seemed best answered by denying that evil was in fact any thing. Many have affirmed that evil was no thing, a nothing, a not or an absence of good. However, evil does real damage. It hurts. The Bible does not deny this existential reality. We hurt. The Biblical account admits we experience real hurt.
b. Evil, Biblically speaking, can also be radical, i.e. it can be recalcitrant or unrepentant. In other words, the Bible says clearly that in the end some beings will choose to remain evil and will be lost or eternally condemned. Once again this many not surprise you, but again for many the idea that a good Creator would create anything good which could ultimately be lost was a logical impossibility or a conundrum. If to be is to be good, how could a being not be? Many thinkers have seen simply existing as a good in itself. To be at all means to participate in the good. In this sort of understanding no being could ultimately be lost since to become totally evil would mean to cease to exist, i.e. to not be or be a nothing. (So thought Origen - apocatastasis.)
Yet the Bible clearly teaches that in the end when Christ judges the nations some beings, at least the devil and his fallen minions will be lost, i.e. cast into the lake of fire. Whether or not we understand these terms literally the point is clear that some created beings will cease to be or be punished eternally.
Fourthly, creatures have limited freedom. They do evil.
Also the Bible makes clear that there is some limited freedom which creatures have which they can misuse. In philosophical terms some created beings are demiurges, i.e. they have limited ability to “create” or fashion things from existing things. As created in the image of the Creator humans can (and did in the Garden of Eden) chose to use their creative abilities for evil or to cause suffering and pain. The history of humankind is replete with examples to numerous and miserable to enumerate. That the story of Cain and Abel follows not far after the Fall of humankind is not coincidental, either logically or actually.
Fifthly, there will be judgment of evil.
The Bible also declares that there will be judgment upon unrepentant or recalcitrant evil beings. While there is an offer of forgiveness to humankind through Christ there is no indication that such an offer has been made available to Satan or fallen angels. Any statements beyond these are pure speculation. The Bible does teach, though, that after the Great Judgment there will be a New Heavens and a New Earth. Paul says the whole creation groans awaiting the redemption of the sons of God. Apparently this earth will be released from the curse upon it which was instituted after the Fall and renewed.
Finally we experience evil and are evil.
The Bible does also honestly identify with our own existential circumstances. We experience evil, not only without, but within. We know temptation. It is real and not imaginary. We know pride.
The Classical statement of the problem of evil
The classical dilemma which has been constructed which questions the existence of the Biblical, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God can be constructed simply as follows:
Major premise: God is all-powerful and good.
minor premise: Evil exists.
But a good and all-powerful God would eliminate evil.
Ergo: There cannot be a good and all-powerful God.
Philosophically the options for resolving this dilemma have gone in several directions. We shall examine four of these which seem to be the main options. Other “solutions” seem to be only variations of these basic options.
We will begin by examining attempts to resolve this dilemma by focusing on the minor premise first (Evil exists) and then consider attempts which focus on the Major premise (God is all-powerful and good).
A. Attempts to resolve the minor premise that evil exists
1. Evil is nothing (Deny it exists).
a. Evil is a “lack”.
This simple phrase can be understood in several ways. First it can mean that evil is a lack of the good. In neo-Platonistic terms evil is the absence of good, just as a lack of light is darkness. The darkness itself is nothing (no thing), but is rather the absence of light. Evil then would be the withdrawal of the good. God withdraws and allows a being to withdraw good in some situation resulting in an evil which is also a lack of some good, e.g. a lack of food leads to starvation, i.e. a lack of life. However, this idea seems to be counterintuitive (contrary to our experience) in so far as evil often seems more destructive than merely the withdrawal of good, e.g. a bullet killing someone seems more active than simply a lack; something acts to cause death.
b. Evil is a malevolent something.
Some like Karl Barth and Serge Bulgakov (among others) have understood evil as “no thing” or as mh on (me on), actually a malevolent sort of something. Some take this idea as far as an essential dualism. (See below.) There seems to be little Biblical evidence for any such sort of “positively negative” force outside of God.
c. Evil is only apparent.
Another way to understand this phrase and resolve the problem is to argue that in fact there is no such thing as evil. Again this may seem counterintuitive to our experience, but the argument has been persuasive to many. Some like Hegel have argued that evil is only an appearance to a limited creature. If we understood everything from “God’s” perspective we would see that what seems evil for me or to me is only apparently evil and ultimately for the best, i.e. really good. However, again this seems counterintuitive to our experience. Evil seems quite real especially when we experience it in suffering or death. Also the Bible clearly says that though God causes all things to work together for good to those who love Him it does not promise that God will cause all things to work together for good for all. On the contrary the Bible says clearly that God will punish recalcitrant evil-doers. Evil seems real enough and in some cases radical.
2. Evil is necessary
(and unavoidable, perhaps even desirable)
Still this idea that evil is only apparent often carries along with it the idea that evil is necessary. Again Hegel, for instance, sees evil as necessary to the development of humankind. For example for there to be knowledge the Fall was necessary. “You shall be like God knowing good from evil.” There are various versions of this idea. Hegel’s version is a sophisticated form of monism or a sort of absolute idealism. For Hegel there is ultimately only one essence of all that is: the real is the rational and the rational is the real. All is Geist or Spirit, i.e. “God.” However, there are also less sophisticated forms of this idea. The polytheism of many primitive [and post-modern!] people understands evil as a necessary part of creation.
3. Evil is eternal.
Almost concomitant to the second idea that evil is necessary follows the corollary that evil is eternal. Some Hegel scholars argue that there will be an end or a telos to history and good and evil will be sublated into the “beyond good and evil.” However, others argue that the cycle of affirmation, negation and negation of negation will go on eternally; thus evil would be eternal (though still only apparently). The dualism of the Manichees whom Augustine fought also views evil as an eternal force. Some such as Jacob Böhme have tried to view God as being an “Urgrund”, i.e. as having two poles: one “dark” and irrational and one “light” and rational. However, the Bible does not allow for such a construction of God. The Bible clearly teaches that God is good and all-powerful.
4. Evil is a perversion of the good.
In Biblical terms this final solution seems most acceptable. Beings originally created good and with some limited freedom and creative ability choose to use good for evil ends. A brilliant criminal who masterminds the “perfect” crime, for example, is such a being.
God created humankind good and with some power to create or fashion new things (even events) from existing things. Humans (and apparently angels) can choose and have chosen to use those creative abilities and powers to achieve evil or wrong ends. Biblically anything which is contrary to God and His will is evil. Since God is good, true and love we can conclude that anything bad, false and unloving is evil.
B. Attempts to resolve this dilemma by focusing on the Major premise (God is all-powerful and good).
1. There is no god.
Besides focusing on the minor premise of our argument above, other attempts to resolve the dilemma focus on God or the Major Premise. Atheists merely deny the first premise: that there is a God at all. They would argue that the existence of evil itself is the most powerful argument against any God at all. However, then they usually postulate that the universe or matter is eternal. Atheism as a world view seems unsatisfactory since it leaves unexplained the existence of contingent being; i.e. why there is anything at all when everything we observe in the universe is passing or temporal.
2. God is good, but not all-powerful.
Another more subtle approach is the approach of the panentheists who attempt to resolve the dilemma by accepting that “God” is good, but denying that He is all-powerful (and usually all-knowing). Panentheists in fact deny the Biblical or theistic God at all. Their “God” is really a demiurge similar to the demiurge in Plato’s Timaeus, i.e. a creator limited in power (and perhaps knowledge) who must work with a resistant material (like a potter with clay) and who does the best he can, but cannot guarantee success. In the panentheistic view “God” can only persuade humankind (and other sentient or self-conscious life, if there is such) to act according to his will and plans. He too is developing and growing.
As Norman Geisler (and Nicholas Onufrievich Lossky) point out such a “God” is not God at all. Such a panentheistic god would need a theistic God as his ground. Such a “God” would be of no help to us ultimately and surely is not worthy of worship since his project is wasteful, i.e. that he merely uses us to advance himself and then we are “destroyed” (no longer personal, individual beings). He (or more properly it) may have the advantage that it cannot be accused of being responsible ultimately for evil, but neither can it ultimately be counted on for redemption or accomplishing its designs. The panentheistic god needs a savior!
3. God is malevolent, evil.
Some feel that God can do anything He likes and what He calls “good” is good. For example if God called murder good and letting live bad He would be justified in doing it since He is sovereign. What He declares is “right” and “good”. This view is known as nominalism philosophically. It has been propounded by such thinkers as William of Ockham.
This view, however, seems to have too many non-Biblical and counter-intuitive implications to be convincing to many. Though, some may draw “comfort” from the idea that “God willed it so”, this seems more like fatalism than a truly Biblical submission to God’s will. Perhaps we cannot see what “good” will come of some “evil”, but murder would still be murder even to the most fatalist among us.
C. John Hick’s Theodicy: This world is a “vale of soul-making”
Positive points:
1. This world is not meant to be a paradise.
John Hick seems correct in his article in so far as he emphasizes that this world is not intended to be a paradise or a velvet-lined pet cage for God’s pet humans. This world does seem more to be a “vale of soul-making” more than a place where humans can flourish without any harm or effort. If this is “the best of all possible worlds” (as Leibniz asserted) it is clear that its goal is not anything like our temporal and immediate comfort, but rather (to use the old hymn line) to “fit us for heaven to live with Thee there.”
2. This world is temporary.
Hick is also right that pleasure is not man’s ultimate goal; at least not on the earth (whether we can be Christian hedonists in John Piper’s sense of the term is perhaps acceptable; but it doesn’t mean God supplies our every whim and want). The Bible makes clear that this earth is a temporary place; at least its present condition and order are temporary. Some aspects (logical ones, for instance) may be eternal, but others (the presence of evil) are not.
3. Human beings will always be embodied.
Another point about which Hick seems correct is that humans will always be embodied beings. Humans never were nor will they ever be pure spirits, i.e. without some sort of body. Exactly what a resurrection or eternal body will be like is still unclear, but the fact that we will be resurrected bodily and have eternal bodies like Christ’s resurrected body is clear.
4. Humanity is central to God’s concerns for this earth
As well humanity is central to God’s concerns for this earth. Whatever credence we can give to ecological concerns and concern for other sentient life (i.e. animals and plants) the Bible makes clear that Christ came to die for humanity; not for the angels. The heavens and earth will be made new, but that is consequential to God’s main purpose which is the redemption of the children of God.
Negative points:
1. Evolution is not a “fact”.
However, Hick seems to be wrong on several other points. He seems first of all to view evolution as a fact. Suffice it to say that while evolution might be or may have been God’s mechanism for creation it remains highly speculative and, it seems to me and many, largely unproved scientifically and philosophically inadequate as an explanation.
2. Paul & John do not disagree; God is a God of justice AND love.
Hick also seems to pit Paul (and Augustine) against John. This is a typical liberal understanding of the development of the New Testament and the relationship of Paul and John’s respective “versions” of Christianity. However, I think there is no final conflict between Paul and John, i.e. between a God justice and a God of love. (See Ridderbos Paul.)
3. The perfecting of humans will not last eternally.
Finally Hicks seems to be wrong about the fact that perfecting of human persons will go on eternally. That sounds more like purgatory than heaven to me. He seems to have denied the role of our ultimate redemption in conforming us to the image of Christ (“We shall all be changed; in the twinkling of an eye” “When we see Him we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.”). Hick’s version of eternity seems too Kantian. Kant argued that humans must be eternal since no human could complete his or her moral task of self-perfection here on the earth. Hick seems to have a similar view. This seems quite wrong from a Biblical view-point since, though we are to exert what effort we can in cooperating with the Holy Spirit in our sanctification, ultimately our final redemption when Christ returns will complete the process.
Ultimate conclusions
Given then the Biblical facts we have established and the philosophical options we have eliminated what are some final conclusions we can draw.
1. Place blame where blame is due.
Rather than blaming God for evil and suffering we should put the blame squarely where it belongs on the individuals who perpetrate it. We can hurt each other and we do. There is forgiveness, but there may need to be restitution, if possible. Some evil cannot be redeemed. Some scars remain, even if healing occurs. Some things get broken and no among of glue will repair them. (Jeff Seume’s sermon: Life is short. Life is fragile. Life is hard. Therefore, handle it with care!)
2. Differentiate between suffering brought on oneself and suffering inflicted upon one.
See I Peter 3. Sometimes we earn suffering by doing wrong or evil things. If we smoke and develop emphysema or drink alcohol and drive and then wreck we have no one to blame but ourselves. If we break God’s law we will suffer. Gal. 6:7
If, however, we have suffering inflicted upon us due to envy or other reasons we can be assured that God will reward us for standing firm. Some suffering which we undergo may be unavoidable given the nature of this life, for instance, when we must “compete” for resources, places, etc. (However, this idea implicitly denies that God can intervene and create any more of the lacking resource. contra Lossky’s view of the unavoidable evil of existing in this psycho-material realm).
3. DO GOOD! BE GOOD! BE TRUE!
We have a positive ability to do good. We are created in the image of our Creator and have some limited freedom and power to create. Let us do good, not evil. Let us be truly good as He is good. Let us be true, not false. He is True (both truthful and trustworthy or faithful).
See for further help
Erickson, Millard, Christian Theology Chapter 20 Evil and God’s world: A Special Problem
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction, pp. 263-267
McDowell, Josh & Don Stewart Answers , appropriate articles
Lossky, Nicholas Onufrievich, Usloviia Absoliutnogo Dobra and Bog i mirovoie zlo
and The World as an Organic Whole
see also bibliography for the course appropriate sections of Paul Little and other texts listed in the bibliography for History of Philosophy of Religion.
