The Problem of Evil

The Theistic Problem

Why a Problem?

Suffering simply happens; why is this a problem?

Any compassionate being (human or otherwise) would like to see suffering relieved, or at least explained

Theistic doctrines do not seem to offer either present relief from, or consistent explanation of, suffering.

Epicurus’ famous formulation of the problem Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is impotent.

Is God able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Whence then evil?

The Suffering Dilemma

The Data of Experience

There is personal and historical evidence of massive suffering

The Definition of God

“God” is defined as omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.

OOG = this definition

Simple Solutions to the Problem of Evil

The problem is presented as a polarity of opposites.

Hence, denying the truth or accuracy of one of the poles will easily resolve the problem in the abstract.

1. If God is indifferent or malevolent, evil makes positive sense.

2. If there is no evil (that is, if suffering can be explained), then the existence of the OOG God is not challenged.

Beyond the Simple Solutions

Doctrinal and common-sense considerations work against simple solutions of this problem.

“theo” “dikē”

Theodicy: A justification of the ways of God to humans, by offering explanations of both kinds of suffering in light of the existence of an all-powerful God.

god justice

Thinking about “evil”

There are different kinds of suffering:

Natural (caused by natural laws) Earthquakes, droughts, etc

Moral (causes by moral agents) War, murder, rape

On the Relativity of Defining “Evil”

It can be argued that suffering is not evil. If so, suffering requires no particular explanation.

Example 2: Suffering is a part of, or a means to, a greater good.

Example 1: Evil is not a positive reality which opposes good, but is rather a privation or lack of good.

Responses to the idea that Evil is a Privation of Good

■ Assumes that “goodness” is a metaphysical rather than moral idea:

“Good” = “complete,” full being

“Evil” = “incomplete,” deviation from fully developed nature

■ May assume the OOG God:

To most humans, certain kinds of suffering just are morally unacceptable.

The Logical v. the Evidential Problem of Evil

Just how strong is this claimed incompatibility between God and evil?

1. It is insurmountable (the logical assertion)

2. It is strongly persuasive (the evidential problem)

The Logical Problem of Evil

The logical problem focuses on the compatibility of the following two claims:

1. “God is omnipotent, omniscient and loving.”2. “Suffering exists, and is evil.”

Alternately put: It is claimed that the “evil” of suffering is logically incompatible with the “good” of God, much as the claim that “this is red” is logically incompatible with the claim that “this is not colored.

Assumptions of the Logical Problem

1. A good thing always eliminates evil, as far as it can.

2. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

Response to the Logical Problem – Assumption 1

It may not be true that a good thing always eliminates evil.

■ It is possible that some evil (suffering) is necessary to some end or some state of reality.

Necessary suffering is suffering which is proportionate to a particular goal/state of reality, and which is apportioned justly to suffering beings.

Response to the Logical Problem – Assumption 2

“Omnipotence” does not necessarily entail the power to do what is logically impossible.

Creating a square circle

Controlling a free being

Counter-Response:

If logic itself is created by God, then God is not bound by logical possibility or impossibility.

The Evidential Problem of Evil

The evidential problem questions the likelihood of God’s existence (as described), given the quantity and quality of human suffering that has existed throughout history.

This problem defines such suffering as gratuitous (unnecessary).

Most responses to the problem of evil address this evidential issue.

On suffering as a means to an end

If suffering is necessary to the achievement of a good, it is not evil.

Kinds of unnecessary evil:

That which produces no good

That which produces a good – but this good could have come into existence without the suffering, or this good is insufficiently valuable to outweigh the evil

That which is inflicted unjustly

Examples of Responses to the Evidential Problem of Evil

Evil is necessary as a means to good.

Evil is due to human free will.

■ Evil builds character

■ Good cannot be recognized/appreciated without the recognition/perception of evil.

Responses to the explanations of evil from the evidential perspective The necessity argument exhibits bias in favor

of the preferred solution Character is destroyed as well as built If good and evil are mutually dependent, either

one could be offered as a foil to highlight the other

Assuming the value of free will outweighs the evil it “necessitates”: Divine intervention is possible in the outcomes

of free actions without interfering with the commission of those free actions.

A Final Thought

It cannot be presumed that suffering is justified. The point of argument is to demonstrate from objective data and principles, that one’s conclusion is supported.

This raises a troublesome question: if joy and suffering is ambiguous in life, why assume that God prefers the former (other than, of course, the assumption that this is what He would prefer)?

Evil and Karma

Moral Chance in a Just Universe

Two principles of karmic justice

Universal Justice: “Each person should have an equal

opportunity to achieve happiness and liberation”

The Moral Law “unless there is a necessary connection between an action’s morality and pain or pleasure, there is no reason to be moral”

The necessity of multiple lives

The two principles of karmic justice necessitate more than one life An absolute response to evil and good is a necessity of

justice pleasure and pain is the mechanism through which this

necessity is enabled an equitable distribution of pleasure and pain doesn’t

occur in one life

This is similar to saying that the goodness and power of the OOG God necessitates a way to show

that our suffering is not gratuitous

Karma and responsibility

Karma refers to that (morally) causal force which ensures universal justice through the working of the moral law.

Karma is an “action-reaction” model, not a “punishment-reward” model

Since your karma emanates from your own freely chosen behavior, your subsequent life is both:

Deserved

A motivation to self-improvement

Some Questions about Karma

What is the mechanism (a real explanation) through which a personal action/event affects the future?

How does a subjective event cause an objective event to occur?

How do we know that experienced suffering/happiness is in fact a just response to prior actions?