The Problem of Evil and God’s Existence: If God is Good, Why Does He Allow Suffering and Evil?
Some might say, “If God is so good why does He allow suffering and evil?” As the problem of evil is present in our world, it does not disprove God’s existence, since many people connect no suffering to a good God or suffering to no God at all. My paper will support this as my claim. I will include different ideas of evil, explain the themes within and define them. I will also include a few people's perspectives on the problem of evil and counterarguments throughout. In addition, I will address free will and how that comes into play with suffering. Furthermore, I will conclude by explaining God’s sovereignty and support my claim that evil does not disprove God’s existence.
Types of Evil and the Problems Within: Definitions
There are two ways to categorize evil and I want to begin this way so there is a general idea of what the difference is between the two. The book, Reason & Religious Belief defines both moral and natural evil. “Moral evil contains the wrongful and hurtful acts as well as the bad character traits of free human beings.”1 In addition, “Natural evil covers the physical pain and suffering that result from either impersonal forces or unintentional human actions.”2 This evil is more about pain, death by natural causes, and disease.
Now within these evils, there are problems people claim with God’s existence, both logical and evidential. Through the logical version, “the essential point of this argument is that there is an inconsistency between certain theistic claims about God and evil.”3 J. L. Mackie claims that the essential parts of theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another. He says that “an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God exists and that evil exists in the world.”4 In addition, he says “that if God has the knowledge, power, and desire to eliminate evil, and if evil is not necessary, then no evil whatsoever should exist.”5 In sum, he states there is no logical way to claim one or another is true, therefore the claim that both evil and God exist is inconsistent.
The other problem of evil is the evidential problem and “their allegation is not that theism is internally inconsistent but that it is implausible. Their argument rests not on a matter of logic but on the issue of whether theism provides a reasonable explanation of the facts of evil.”6 The general assumption is that “God would prevent or eliminate the existence of any pointless or meaningless evil.”7 Moreover, in his article, William Rowe states his evidential argument, “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... Therefore there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.”8 This claim through the evidential view on evil, states God does not exist since there is meaningless evil and there is no proof that it is needed. But why would it be true that if evil exists, God does not?
1 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 179
2 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 180
3 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 184
4 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 180
5 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 180, 181
6 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 184
7 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 185
8 Rowe, William L., “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” American Philosophical Quarterly 16, no. 4 (1979): 335–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009775. 336.
Defense and Theodicy
Now that the different types of evils are explained, there are two types of responses regarding God and evil, which are defense and theodicy. Both are crucial when trying to understand the reasoning for evil behind a good God.“Defense aims at establishing that a given formulation of the argument from evil fails... Theodicy, by contrast, offers an account or explanation of why God allows suffering and evil.”9
Keeping in mind the definitions of both defense and theodicy, some beliefs are properly basic which are beliefs we have that are justified, “a person could be rationally entitled to believe in God if her belief were basic and, when pressed, she was able to offer a successful defense against objections to that belief, such as some version of the problem of evil. This orientation largely supports the view that theodicy is in principle unnecessary, that the theist is not rationally obligated to provide a theodicy in the face of evil.”10 In that case, someone would not have to explain why a good God allows suffering considering their belief. Ultimately, it is up to the person if they want to answer. However, if they do not answer, that does not determine God does not exist.
There are a couple of themes within theodicy in figuring out why evil happens. “One approach that has a degree of uptake among some religious believers at the level of popular culture is that evil is punishment for wrongdoing.”11 In the story of Job, his friends say he must have done something wrong too to deserve that suffering, but God says that is not the case. Moreover, there is also a claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds since God is perfect and would want to create the best for us, “the main thrust here is that this world contains the optimal balance of good and evil commensurate with its being the best overall. Obviously, some goods are made possible only by the presence of evil.”12
Another theme addressed is the ultimate harmony solution which has two positions: “first, all is well with the world from God’s perspective; second, all will be well in the long run.”13 Within these two positions, the first one addresses that God has perfect knowledge so His judgment on the state of the world is valid. In addition, the second position says that “this approach affirms that all evils will eventually result in greater goods, either in temporal life or in the afterlife.”14 Through that is the belief that God knows what is best even while evil is still lingering.
9 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 189
10 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 190
11 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 191
12 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 192
13 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 193
14 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 194
Five Perspectives on the Problem of Evil
A Classic View, a Molinist View, an Open Theist View, An Essential Kenosis View, and a Skeptical Theist View are five different perspectives when looking at the problem of evil. Taking into account length, I will not be explaining their views, only their responses to the problem of evil. Some perspectives are similar to each other, however, I believe that looking at scholarly views on evil will help in understanding.
The Classic View from Phillip Cary states G. W. Leibniz explains that “God has the best possible reason for permitting evils in this best of all possible worlds, he insists that ‘we must truly be satisfied with everything that has come to us.’”15 Moreover, Cray shares that the problem of evil “requires a reason to hope that God will make things different from what they are now.” This view is about trust, not necessarily logic.
A Molinist View from William Lane Craig explains that he agrees with some of the classic view drawn by Cary that “according to which God ‘freely chooses to permit evils he could have prevented, because in his wisdom he knows how to bring a greater good out of precisely these evils.’”16 Moreover, Craig states that he believes and agrees with “the ontological status of evil as a privation and therefore, not something created by God, and about the origination of moral evil in the creaturely will’s turning away from God, the supreme Good, to lesser goods.”17 As I state later concerning free will, this could first be seen as The Fall with Adam and Eve.
The Open Theist Response from William Hasker believes that the God who plays with this world is not the same God of the Bible so He could prevent evil. Hasker says, “[God] has deliberately chosen that every instance of sin and evil should occur exactly as it does occur, and has taken all the steps necessary to guarantee that this will happen.”18 However, Hasker also states how these “two gods” must be different, considering there are so many inconsistencies, “we must assume that God is entirely pleased and delighted with everything that occurs on earth; otherwise there would be an inner inconsistency in God’s mind that is simply unthinkable.”19 Hasker’s argument does not make sense because, in that way, God would not be as powerful at all since He would no longer be One full God in control.
Now, the Essential Kenosis View from Thomas Jay Oord is extremely clear. He shares that “God uses evil that God didn’t foreknow and couldn’t prevent. My view better supports the claims that God always opposes evil, while affirming that God works to squeeze some good out of the genuine evil God didn’t want in the first place.”20 The God Oord believes in, prevents evil where He can and therefore thinks “God’s love is inherently uncontrolling.”21 Though this claim, it no longer gives God power.
Lastly, the Skeptical Theist View from Stephen Wykstra which is also straightforward shares that “if God does exist, then we should not much expect to see, in any fullness or detail, his purposes for not preventing more of this world’s evil.”22 However, Wykstra leaves us with a question to ponder about asking God to protect people from evil or suffering, “it’s in the prayer our Lord taught us: ‘Deliver us from evil.’ But if God actively does that, must he not have some particular reason when he seems not to do it?”23 I will address the question of why is there suffering, later in this essay.
15 Chad Meister and James K. Dew Jr., God and the Problem of Evil: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017), 131
16 Meister and Dew Jr., God and the Problem of Evil, 144
17 Meister and Dew Jr., God and the Problem of Evil, 144
18 Meister and Dew Jr., God and the Problem of Evil, 153
19 Meister and Dew Jr., God and the Problem of Evil, 154
20 Meister and Dew Jr., God and the Problem of Evil, 167
21 Meister and Dew Jr., God and the Problem of Evil, 172
22 Meister and Dew Jr., God and the Problem of Evil, 173
Free Will
Free will is a major theme within the problem of evil and God’s existence. Alvin Plantinga is a popular philosopher who vocalizes his thoughts when it comes to free will. “God can create free creatures, but he cannot cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if he does so, then they are not significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, he must create creatures capable of moral evil; and he cannot leave these creatures free to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. God did in fact create significantly free creatures; but some of them went wrong in the exercise of their freedom: this is the source of moral evil.”24 With that, was the Fall of Adam and Eve as they exercised their freedom in the wrong way. Moreover, that made creatures sin after them, resulting in some evil in the world. God knows every step His creatures are going to make before it is made. But with that said, He will not stop them from doing what is wrong, He already knows their moves. The performing of an action of up to the person, not God.25
Furthermore, Plantinga’s Free Will Defense rebuts the inconsistent claims about the omnipotence of God and evil. He does not justify God’s permission for evil, but his defense ultimately states that it is “possible for God to exist and for evil to exist.”26 His claim is that “it is not merely possible, but it is actually true that God created significantly free beings who went wrong.”27 With that, God granted creatures free will and every choice is meaningful and valuable to the world.
23 Meister and Dew Jr., God and the Problem of Evil, 183
24 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 181
25 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 182
26 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 182
27 Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 195
Evil through the Sovereignty of God
Throughout the pages of the Bible, it is clear that God is good. Yes, there are many instances where there is evil and we wonder “Why did He do that?” However, God is doing a good thing behind the surface for His glory. Now this essay is not about how loving God is because as I mentioned, there is already a whole book written on that. This portion of my essay will explain how God is still good and sovereign through the evil and how this evil has a purpose. It does not mean God is any less loving but just that through suffering we see His Goodness and power more. “God accepts responsibility for the presence of evil. Ultimately, though we see not yet the pattern of His way, evil will be made to be a means of glorifying God.”28
Though we read evil is to glorify God, why do people still need to suffer at the hand of evil? That might not be an answer we will even receive until the afterlife. “His purposes are far beyond the understanding of mortal man.”29 However, trust in the Lord must be the foundation when faced with evil. “For the Bible repeatedly emphasizes that God never suffers evil to get out of hand. He controls it; He restricts it.”30 Through this, God is still good, “He will not rest until evil has burned itself out and the whole creation is liberated into the glorious day when sin shall be no more.”31 And God wants that because He cares about His children.
28 William Fitch, God & Evil (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), 22
29 William Fitch, God & Evil, 24
30 William Fitch, God & Evil, 23
31 William Fitch, God & Evil, 25
Common Questions about God and Suffering
Within this book Reasoning about God, there are several questions and answers on suffering and God’s existence and there are two that are extremely common that should be addressed. One question is if God exists and wants people to do good then why do the good often suffer while the evil prosper? “Suppose it were clear to everyone that the good always prosper while the evil suffer. This would make impossible the struggle between doing something because it’s right and doing it from self-interest; that would be a loss, since such struggle are important.”32 Furthermore, struggle is crucial for growth.
In addition, another question asked is why do people suffer from disease. Gensler makes two points, “God didn’t cause or desire this specific evil. But he set up the world so that a percentage of people will get such diseases,” and that is up to people how to respond and make it an opportunity for love and growth.33 One other comment Gensler made that can sum up the entirety of the reason for suffering is “our suffering is a gift from God that can deepen our lives. How we respond is up to us; if we reject it and become bitter, that’s our fault, not God’s.”34
32 Harry J. Gensler, Reasoning about God (New York, NY: Routledge, 2023), 108
33 Gensler, Reasoning about God, 109
34 Gensler, Reasoning about God, 109
Does Suffering Disprove God: Conclusion
There are several thoughts on whether suffering disproves God’s existence on each side saying yes or no. However, I wanted to end with another claim from a famous philosopher about how suffering does not disprove God’s existence. St. Irenaeus says that the “struggle against evil is valuable and important in God’s plan.”35 To some people, there is this expectation of God being good that He would not let His children suffer. The Bible never said the Christian walk would be easy if you follow God. Evil may exist, however, it does not mean that God does not exist or is not good.
In sum, my major claim is that both evil and God exist, therefore suffering does not disprove God’s existence. God has given us free will and there is no meaningless evil that will not turn out for the greater good on earth or in the afterlife—the question of why can be past the understanding of man. But we choose how to respond to that suffering and through suffering, we can become closer to God as it glorifies Him.
35 Gensler, Reasoning about God, 103
Bibliography
Fitch, William. God & Evil. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967.
Gensler, Harry J. Reasoning about God: An Introduction to Thinking Logically about Religion. New York, NY: Routledge, 2023.
Meister, Chad, and James K. Dew Jr. God and the Problem of Evil: Five Views. Edited by Phillip Cary, William Lang Craig, William Hasker, Thomas Jay Oord, and Stephen Wykstra. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017.
Peterson, Michael L, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenback, and David Basinger. Reason & Religious Belief an Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2013.
Rowe, William L. “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” American Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 16, no. No. 4 (October 1979): pp. 335-341. https://www-jstor-org.redeemer.idm.oclc.org/stable/20009775?searchText=william+rowe &searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dwilliam%2Browe&ab_segme nts=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A50ab05bfefe6a975 3df895e9719c7e66.
Originally submitted:
Eden Corner
PHL 340: Philosophy of Religion
Jim Morris
March 13, 2024
Redeemer University
